Tag Archives: Soviet

This report provides an exhaustive comparative analysis of the small arms adoption lifecycles of the United States and the Russian Federation, examining the entire process from the identification of a military need to final field deployment. The analysis reveals two fundamentally divergent philosophies rooted in distinct strategic cultures, industrial models, and historical experiences. The United States employs a market-driven, technology-focused model aimed at achieving “technological overmatch”—a decisive qualitative advantage over any potential adversary. This approach is characterized by a complex, lengthy, and expensive procurement process, managed through a competitive commercial industrial base, which yields highly advanced but costly weapon systems. Conversely, the Russian Federation utilizes a state-directed, evolution-based model that prioritizes reliability, simplicity, and mass production. This system, a legacy of its Soviet predecessor, relies on a state-controlled defense-industrial complex to produce robust, cost-effective weapons that are evolutionary upgrades of proven designs, intended to equip a large military force. The recent conflict in Ukraine has stress-tested both philosophies, highlighting the strengths and critical vulnerabilities of each. This report deconstructs the procedural steps, doctrinal underpinnings, and industrial realities of both lifecycles, offering a detailed analysis of their respective pros and cons and concluding with strategic lessons and an outlook on the future of infantry weapons in an era of rapid technological change.

Part I: The American Approach: A Market-Driven Quest for Overmatch

The United States’ approach to small arms adoption is a direct reflection of its broader national defense strategy: to deter and, if necessary, win conflicts through overwhelming technological superiority. This philosophy permeates every stage of the adoption lifecycle, from the initial definition of a requirement to the final fielding of a weapon system. The process is intricate, deliberative, and deeply integrated with a competitive commercial defense industry, creating a system that is simultaneously capable of producing world-leading technology and susceptible to significant bureaucratic and financial challenges.

Section 1. Doctrinal and Industrial Philosophy: The Pursuit of the Decisive Edge

The modern American system for developing and acquiring small arms is built upon three foundational pillars: a strategic doctrine demanding technological superiority, an industrial model reliant on the private sector, and a bureaucratic framework designed to enforce joint-service requirements.

Core Philosophy of “Technological Overmatch”

The central tenet of U.S. military modernization is the pursuit of “technological overmatch”.¹ This doctrine posits that American forces must possess a decisive technological advantage to offset potential numerical inferiority and minimize casualties. In the context of small arms, this means new weapon systems are not sought as mere replacements for aging inventory; they are expected to be “leap-ahead” capabilities that provide quantifiable and significant improvements in core performance metrics such as accuracy, effective range, and terminal lethality.³ The objective is not to achieve parity with an adversary’s capabilities but to render them obsolete. This philosophy was the driving force behind the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program, which was initiated specifically to defeat peer-adversary body armor that the existing 5.56x45mm NATO round could no longer reliably penetrate at desired engagement distances.⁵ The pursuit of overmatch dictates a high tolerance for complexity and cost in exchange for a decisive edge on the battlefield.

The Post-McNamara Industrial Model

The structure of the U.S. defense industrial base today is a direct legacy of policy decisions made in the mid-20th century, most notably those of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. His administration oversaw the closure of the government-owned and -operated armory system, exemplified by the historic Springfield Armory, which had designed and produced U.S. military small arms for nearly two centuries.⁶ This pivotal shift transferred the primary responsibility for weapons development and manufacturing to the private commercial sector.⁶

Consequently, the Department of Defense (DoD) transitioned from being a producer to a customer. The modern process involves the DoD generating detailed specifications and performance requirements, which are then distributed to industry through mechanisms like Requests for Proposal (RFPs) to solicit concepts and bids.⁶ This created a competitive marketplace where private firms vie for lucrative, long-term government contracts. The intended benefit of this model was to harness the dynamism and innovation of the American commercial sector, fostering a broader range of potential solutions than a state-run system could provide.⁶

However, this commercialization introduced a complex dynamic. The shift to a private industrial base created a vibrant ecosystem for innovation that the DoD can leverage.⁸ At the same time, it transformed the adoption process into an intense economic and political competition. The immense financial stakes involved—often hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars over the life of a program—incentivize extensive lobbying and political engagement by major defense contractors.⁶ This can lead to situations where legislators intervene to “jam up the process” to advocate for a vendor located in their state or district.⁶ Furthermore, the procurement cycle is notoriously long, formal, and bureaucratic, creating what is known in the industry as the “valley of death”.¹⁰ This is the perilous gap between the development of a promising prototype and the securing of a production contract, a period during which many smaller, more agile, and innovative companies often fail because they lack the financial reserves to sustain operations while navigating the protracted and costly procurement system.¹⁰ The system, therefore, inherently favors large, established defense contractors who possess the capital, institutional knowledge, and political influence required to endure the multi-year process.⁷ The very system designed to leverage commercial innovation can, in practice, create formidable barriers that filter for corporate endurance and political acumen as much as for pure technical merit.

Emphasis on Joint-Service Requirements

A third defining characteristic of the modern U.S. approach is the institutionalized emphasis on joint-service requirements. Historically, the different branches of the U.S. military often procured their own distinct weapon systems, leading to a proliferation of incompatible small arms and ammunition types. A congressional investigation in the 1970s, for instance, found that the U.S. Air Force alone had 25 different handguns in its inventory.¹¹ This lack of standardization created significant logistical and interoperability challenges.

To address this, the DoD established the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), a formal process managed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to validate military requirements from a joint-force perspective.¹² The goal of JCIDS is to ensure that new systems are interoperable, non-redundant, and meet the needs of the entire force, not just a single service.¹³ This philosophy is further embodied in organizations like the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP), which was created to coordinate and standardize weapons procurement across the armed services, as exemplified by the XM9 program that led to the adoption of the Beretta M9 pistol.¹¹ While often criticized for its bureaucracy, this joint-centric approach is a core element of the U.S. lifecycle, intended to maximize efficiency and operational effectiveness across the entire Department of Defense.

Section 2. The Lifecycle Framework: From Capability Gap to Fielded System

The U.S. small arms adoption lifecycle is a highly structured, multi-phase process governed by a dense framework of regulations and managed by specialized organizations. It is designed to be deliberative and exhaustive, moving a concept from an identified operational need through development, rigorous testing, and ultimately to production and fielding.

Phase 1: Requirements Generation (The JCIDS Process)

The journey of a new weapon system begins long before any hardware is built. It starts with the formal identification of a need, which is then codified and validated through the JCIDS process.

Triggering the Process: An adoption cycle is typically initiated by one of two primary drivers. The first is the simple aging of existing systems; firearms have a finite service life, and periodic replacement is necessary to prevent the force from fielding worn-out equipment.⁶ The more strategic driver, however, is the identification of an “emergent threat” or a “capability gap” where existing systems are deemed insufficient to meet future battlefield challenges.⁶ The NGSW program, for example, was a direct response to intelligence indicating that potential adversaries were fielding body armor capable of defeating the standard 5.56mm M4 carbine.⁵ This threat assessment triggers a formal requirements generation process.
Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA): The sponsoring military service, such as the U.S. Army, initiates the process by conducting a Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA).¹⁵ This is a formal, analytical study that identifies the operational tasks the force must be able to perform, assesses the ability of current and programmed systems to accomplish those tasks against a projected threat, and identifies any shortfalls or “gaps”.¹⁶ The CBA is the foundational document that provides the analytical justification for pursuing a new materiel solution.¹⁵
JCIDS Documentation and Validation: If the CBA determines that a new system is required, the sponsoring service develops an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD). The ICD formally documents the capability gap and proposes a range of potential solutions, both materiel and non-materiel (such as changes in doctrine or training).¹³ This document is then submitted into the JCIDS process for review and validation. It is scrutinized by the Joint Staff and various Functional Capability Boards (FCBs) before being presented to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), which is chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.¹² The JROC’s role is to validate the requirement from a joint-force perspective, ensuring it aligns with broader defense strategy and does not create redundancies.¹² A validated ICD provides the authority for a program to proceed to a Milestone A decision, officially initiating the acquisition process.¹³
Critique of JCIDS: While well-intentioned, the JCIDS process is widely criticized within the defense community as a major source of delay and inefficiency. Critics argue that it is a “time-consuming, ‘low-value-added’ bureaucratic mess” that can add a minimum of two years to the development timeline.¹⁷ The process is seen as overly rigid, forcing programs to lock into technical specifications years before prototyping, which stifles innovation and makes it difficult to adapt to evolving technology or threats.¹⁷ Reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have highlighted that programs rarely, if ever, complete the JCIDS validation process within the notional 103-day timeline established by the Joint Staff.¹⁸

Phase 2: Acquisition and Development (The PEO Soldier Model)

Once a requirement is validated, the program moves into the acquisition phase, managed by a dedicated Program Executive Office (PEO). For the U.S. Army, this responsibility falls to PEO Soldier.

Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier: PEO Soldier is the Army’s central organization responsible for the rapid prototyping, procurement, and fielding of all equipment a soldier wears, carries, or consumes.¹⁹ Within this organization, specific small arms programs are managed by Project Manager Soldier Lethality (PM SL) and its subordinate offices, such as Product Manager, Individual Weapons (PdM IW) and Product Manager, Next Generation Weapons (PdM NGW).¹⁹ These offices are responsible for the entire lifecycle management of their assigned weapon systems, from development to divestiture.¹⁹
Industry Engagement and Solicitation: PM SL translates the validated requirements from the ICD into a formal solicitation for industry. This can take the form of a traditional Request for Proposal (RFP) or a more flexible instrument like a Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON) issued under Other Transaction Authority (OTA).⁶ OTAs, in particular, have become a favored tool for accelerating development, as they are less constrained by traditional federal acquisition regulations and allow for more agile, collaborative prototyping efforts with industry.²¹ The solicitation will detail the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)—the mandatory, non-negotiable performance thresholds the system must meet—as well as other desired attributes.⁶
Competitive Prototyping: A hallmark of the U.S. system is its reliance on competition to drive innovation and ensure value. For major programs, the government typically awards development contracts to multiple vendors, funding them to produce and submit prototype systems for evaluation.⁶ In the NGSW program, the Army down-selected three industry teams (SIG Sauer; General Dynamics/True Velocity; and Textron Systems) to participate in the final 27-month phase of prototyping and testing.³ Each team was required to deliver a complete system, including a rifle, an automatic rifle, and their unique ammunition solution.³ This competitive approach allows the government to evaluate multiple design philosophies side-by-side before committing to a single solution.

This phase is arguably the most critical and resource-intensive part of the U.S. lifecycle. It is a comprehensive and data-driven effort to ensure that a proposed system is not only technically sound but also operationally effective, reliable, and suitable for the soldier who will use it.

Rigorous Test and Evaluation (T&E) Protocol: Candidate systems are subjected to an exhaustive battery of tests designed to verify their performance against the KPPs and other requirements. This includes technical testing for accuracy, reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM) under a wide range of environmental and operational conditions.⁶ For the NGSW program, this phase was immense in scale, involving the firing of over 1.5 million rounds of the new 6.8mm ammunition and the accumulation of over 20,000 hours of direct soldier testing and feedback.²² These tests are conducted at specialized facilities like the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) Armaments Center.²³
Soldier-Centric Feedback and Iterative Design: A significant evolution in the modern U.S. T&E process is the deep integration of soldier feedback throughout development. Programs now incorporate multiple “Soldier Touch Points” (STPs), where active-duty soldiers are given prototype weapons and asked to evaluate their ergonomics, handling, and usability in realistic scenarios.²² This is augmented by more formal Expeditionary Operational Assessments (EOAs), where units test the systems in field training environments to provide data-driven analysis and direct user feedback.²⁴ This iterative process is crucial; it allows program managers and industry designers to make “simple design changes” based on real-world input, ensuring the final product is not just a marvel of engineering but a practical and effective combat tool that has the confidence of the end-user.²² This approach directly addresses historical failures where technically impressive weapons were fielded that soldiers found difficult to use or maintain.
Materiel Release: Before a weapon can be officially fielded, it must receive a formal Materiel Release. This is a certification process managed by organizations like DEVCOM and the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), which confirms that the system has met all safety, performance, and supportability requirements.²³ It is the final technical gate before production and deployment.

Phase 4: Production and Fielding

Following a successful T&E phase and a “down-select” decision, the program transitions to producing and delivering the new system to the force.

Contract Award and Production: The winning vendor is awarded a production contract, which is often structured to begin with Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP).³ LRIP allows the manufacturer to establish and refine their production lines and quality control processes while producing a limited number of systems for further operational testing. Once these processes are proven, the DoD grants a Milestone C approval for Full-Rate Production, authorizing the manufacture of the weapon system in large quantities.
Phased Deployment: New small arms systems are rarely, if ever, fielded to the entire military simultaneously. The process is phased and prioritized. The first units to receive new equipment are typically high-priority, “first-to-fight” formations, such as the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division, or other elements of the “close combat force”.⁹ From there, the system is gradually rolled out to other combat units, followed by combat support and service support units. This process can take many years, sometimes a decade or more, to complete. As a result, it is common for different units within the same service to be equipped with different generations of weapons long after a new system has been officially adopted.⁹
Full Life-Cycle Management: The adoption lifecycle does not conclude with fielding. It is a “cradle-to-grave” process that includes long-term sustainment, periodic modernization and upgrades, and eventual divestiture.²⁵ Sustainment is managed by organizations like the Army Materiel Command (AMC) and the Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM).²³ When a weapon is finally deemed obsolete or unserviceable, it is turned in to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for demilitarization and disposal, completing the lifecycle.²⁶

Section 3. Case Study: The Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) Program

The NGSW program serves as the quintessential example of the modern U.S. small arms adoption lifecycle in action, embodying its philosophies, processes, and complexities.

The Need: The program was formally initiated in 2017, directly stemming from a congressional mandate and a series of Army studies, including the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration (SAAC) Study.³ These analyses identified a critical capability gap: the standard 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge fired by the M4 carbine and M249 SAW could not reliably defeat the advanced ceramic body armor being fielded by peer adversaries like Russia and China, particularly at ranges beyond 300 meters.⁵ This gap represented an unacceptable risk to the principle of technological overmatch, necessitating a revolutionary leap in infantry weapon performance.
The Process: The Army established ambitious requirements for a new, common system chambered in a government-specified 6.8mm projectile, intended to replace the M4, M249, and eventually the M240 machine gun.³
To accelerate the process, the Army utilized flexible OTA contracting, issuing a PPON that invited industry to propose integrated solutions encompassing a rifle (NGSW-R), an automatic rifle (NGSW-AR), and a novel ammunition design that could achieve the required high velocities and pressures.²¹
This competitive process resulted in the down-selection of three distinct technological approaches: SIG Sauer’s hybrid metallic-cased cartridge, True Velocity’s polymer-cased cartridge (paired with a General Dynamics/Beretta bullpup weapon), and Textron Systems’ cased-telescoped ammunition.³ This allowed the Army to test and evaluate fundamentally different solutions to the same problem.
Crucially, the Army ran a separate competition for the fire control system (NGSW-FC), recognizing that the optic was as important to achieving overmatch as the weapon itself. This competition was won by Vortex Optics with their XM157, a highly advanced optic integrating a laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, and environmental sensors.³ This demonstrates the modern “system-of-systems” approach, where the weapon is just one component of an integrated lethality package.
Over a 27-month period, the three competing systems underwent exhaustive testing and a series of Soldier Touch Points. This iterative feedback loop was critical, allowing for refinements to ergonomics, weight distribution, and user interfaces based on direct soldier input.³
In April 2022, after the comprehensive evaluation, the Army announced that SIG Sauer had been awarded the 10-year production contract.³
The Outcome: The selection of SIG Sauer’s platform resulted in the designation of the XM7 Rifle and the XM250 Automatic Rifle, firing the 6.8x51mm Common Cartridge. Paired with the XM157 Fire Control system, the NGSW represents a generational leap in the range, accuracy, and lethality of the individual soldier’s weapon.³ It is the physical embodiment of the “technological overmatch” philosophy, providing the close combat force with a capability that no other military currently possesses.

Section 4. Analysis of the U.S. Model: Strengths and Systemic Hurdles

The American small arms adoption lifecycle is a double-edged sword. Its meticulous, competitive, and soldier-focused nature produces exceptional weapon systems, but these strengths are counterbalanced by significant systemic weaknesses.

Pros:

Fosters Technological Innovation: The competitive, market-based model incentivizes private industry to invest heavily in research and development to gain a technological edge and win lucrative, multi-billion dollar contracts. This dynamic pushes the boundaries of what is possible in small arms design.⁶
Thoroughness and Rigor: The exhaustive T&E process, combined with the iterative feedback from Soldier Touch Points, ensures that the final product is not only technically compliant but also highly capable, reliable, and accepted by the end-user. This minimizes the risk of fielding a flawed or unpopular system.²²
High-Performance End Product: The unwavering focus on achieving technological overmatch consistently results in weapon systems that are among the most advanced and capable in the world, providing U.S. forces with a tangible battlefield advantage.²
Enhanced Interoperability: Despite its bureaucratic nature, the JCIDS process enforces a joint-force perspective, promoting standardization of systems and ammunition across the DoD. This simplifies logistics, reduces training burdens, and enhances operational effectiveness in joint environments.¹¹

Cons:

Bureaucratic Slowness and Protracted Timelines: The multi-layered review and approval process, particularly the JCIDS framework, is incredibly slow and cumbersome. Major acquisition programs frequently take a decade or more to move from initial concept to first unit equipped, a timeline that struggles to keep pace with the rapid evolution of threats and technology.⁹
Immense Cost: The combination of funding multiple competitive prototypes, conducting extensive and lengthy testing, and pursuing cutting-edge, often unproven, technologies makes U.S. small arms programs exceptionally expensive. These high costs can limit the total number of systems procured and place significant strain on defense budgets.²⁹
Inherent Risk Aversion: The enormous cost, long timelines, and high public and political visibility of major defense acquisition programs can foster a culture of profound risk aversion within the procurement bureaucracy. This can lead to a preference for incremental improvements over truly revolutionary (but potentially higher-risk) concepts, and can stifle the adoption of innovative solutions from non-traditional defense contractors.¹⁰
Program Instability and Political Interference: U.S. acquisition programs are highly vulnerable to the annual congressional budget cycle. Shifting political priorities, partisan budget disputes, and the frequent use of stopgap funding measures known as Continuing Resolutions (CRs) create significant instability. This uncertainty makes long-term planning difficult for both the DoD and industry, and can lead to program delays, cancellations, or “death by a thousand cuts” as funding is slowly reduced over time.⁶

Part II: The Russian Approach: State-Directed Evolution of a Legacy

The Russian Federation’s methodology for small arms adoption stands in stark contrast to the American model. It is a system forged in the crucible of Soviet industrial planning and the doctrinal necessity of equipping a massive, conscript-based military. This legacy informs a philosophy that prioritizes unwavering reliability, operational simplicity, and the capacity for mass production over the pursuit of the absolute technological cutting edge. The process is centralized, top-down, and executed through a state-controlled defense industry, resulting in a lifecycle that is more direct but also more insular and path-dependent than its U.S. counterpart.

Section 1. Doctrinal and Industrial Philosophy: Reliability, Simplicity, and Mass

The Russian approach is guided by a pragmatic philosophy shaped by its unique military history and industrial structure. It is a system designed for resilience and scale, where the individual weapon is viewed as a robust tool for a vast army rather than a high-tech solution for a specialized force.

Core Philosophy of “Good Enough”

The foundational principle of Russian small arms doctrine is the production of weapons that are supremely reliable, simple to operate and maintain, and cost-effective enough to be manufactured in vast quantities.³¹ This “good enough” philosophy is a direct inheritance from the Soviet era, which required weapons that could be effectively used by minimally trained conscripts and could function flawlessly in the harshest environmental conditions, from the arctic cold to desert dust. While Western design often seeks to maximize performance, Russian design seeks to minimize failure. This results in a preference for proven mechanisms, generous operating tolerances, and evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, design changes. The weapon is expected to work every time, for everyone, everywhere, and this doctrinal imperative takes precedence over achieving marginal gains in accuracy or ergonomics through complex or delicate mechanisms.³²

The State-Controlled Industrial Model (OPK)

Unlike the competitive commercial marketplace in the U.S., the Russian defense-industrial complex (known by the Russian acronym OPK) is dominated by large, state-owned or state-controlled corporations.³³ The most prominent of these is Rostec, a state corporation that acts as a holding company for hundreds of defense and high-tech enterprises. Key small arms developers fall under this umbrella, including the iconic Kalashnikov Concern (the primary producer of assault rifles), TsNIITochMash (a central research institute specializing in ammunition and special-purpose weapons), and the KBP Instrument Design Bureau (a developer of high-precision weapons and pistols).³³

These entities are not independent commercial competitors in the Western sense; they are instruments of state policy. They operate within a managed economy, often heavily subsidized by the government, with a mandate to fulfill state requirements rather than to maximize shareholder profit.³³ This structure allows the Kremlin to direct industrial priorities, ramp up production to a “war economy” footing during conflicts, and sustain production lines for strategically important systems even when they are not profitable.³³

The relationship between the state and these design bureaus is deeply intertwined. The success of a design bureau is measured by its ability to secure state orders and have its designs officially adopted by the military. This creates a form of competition, but it is a competition for state favor and resources within a closed system, not a competition for market share in an open one.

Centralized, Top-Down Requirements

The requirements generation process in Russia is a direct, top-down affair. The Ministry of Defence, guided by the national military doctrine, identifies a need and issues a requirement directly to one or more of the state design bureaus.³⁷ There is no equivalent to the complex, bottom-up, consensus-building JCIDS process. The state is the sole customer and the ultimate arbiter of what is needed. These requirements are formalized within long-term State Armament Programmes (GPV), which outline modernization priorities over a decade, and are funded through annual State Defence Orders (GOZ).³⁹ This centralized system can, in theory, be much faster and more decisive than the American process, as it bypasses inter-service debate and lengthy bureaucratic validation cycles.

This state-centric model is profoundly shaped by the legacy of its most successful product. The global success and ubiquity of the Kalashnikov rifle platform have created a powerful institutional inertia that both enables and constrains the Russian adoption system. The entire military apparatus—from training manuals and maintenance depots to the muscle memory of generations of soldiers—is built around the AK. Consequently, while Russian design bureaus have produced technologically advanced and innovative concepts over the years, such as the hyper-burst AN-94 or the balanced-recoil AEK-971, these systems have consistently failed to achieve widespread adoption.⁴¹ They have been relegated to niche roles within special forces units primarily because their increased complexity and cost were deemed unjustifiable for a mass-issue service rifle, especially when vast stockpiles of perfectly functional older AK-variants remained in reserve.⁴² The most recent standard-issue rifle, the AK-12, is not a revolutionary departure but a modernized AK-74, featuring ergonomic and modularity upgrades like Picatinny rails, an improved safety, and an adjustable stock.⁴¹ This path demonstrates that the Russian adoption lifecycle is less about discovering the next revolutionary rifle and more about perfecting the current one. This path-dependency ensures logistical simplicity and leverages existing industrial infrastructure, but it also risks technological stagnation when faced with an adversary willing to make a revolutionary leap, such as the U.S. adoption of an entirely new intermediate caliber with the NGSW program.

Section 2. The Lifecycle Framework: The Centrality of Design Bureaus and State Trials

The Russian adoption lifecycle is a more linear and state-controlled process than its American counterpart. It is centered on the technical expertise of the design bureaus and culminates in a rigorous, state-administered final examination known as State Trials.

Phase 1: Requirement and Design

The process begins when the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) identifies a need, based on its analysis of future threats and the performance of existing equipment, and issues a formal requirement.⁴⁵ This requirement is then passed to the state’s primary design bureaus. Often, multiple bureaus are tasked with developing competing prototypes, fostering a degree of internal competition within the state-controlled system. For example, the competition to select a new service rifle for the Ratnik future soldier program pitted the Kalashnikov Concern’s AK-12 against the A-545, a design originating from the Degtyarev Plant.⁴⁴ These bureaus have specialized areas of expertise; Kalashnikov is the leader in standard assault rifles, while TsNIITochMash focuses on specialized systems, such as silenced weapons like the VSS Vintorez and AS Val, and the development of new ammunition types.³⁵

Phase 2: Prototyping and Internal Evaluation

Once tasked, the design bureaus begin an internal process of design, prototyping, and refinement. This is an iterative process where initial concepts are built, tested, and improved based on the results. As seen in the development of the Lebedev series of pistols, a design may go through several iterations (e.g., from PL-14 to PL-15) as flaws are identified and enhancements are made.⁴⁸ During this phase, the bureaus may solicit limited feedback from elite end-users, such as Spetsnaz (special forces) or units of the Rosgvardiya (National Guard).⁴⁸ A recent and prominent example of this is the testing of the new AM-17 compact assault rifle within the “special military operation zone” in Ukraine. Feedback from military personnel in an active combat environment led to direct modifications of the design, demonstrating a pragmatic approach to leveraging real-world experience to refine a weapon before it enters formal trials.⁵⁰

Phase 3: State Trials and Formal Adoption

This phase is the pivotal gateway to service adoption. Once a design bureau is confident in its prototype, it is submitted for formal State Trials.

State Trials: These are not internal company tests but a rigorous, comprehensive evaluation conducted by the state to verify that the weapon meets all of the MoD’s established tactical and technical specifications.⁵⁰ The trials are designed to push the weapon to its limits under a variety of stressful conditions, such as extreme temperatures, heavy contamination with dirt and sand, and sustained high rates of fire, to ensure it meets the Russian military’s stringent standards for durability and reliability.⁵¹ The successful completion of State Trials is the single most important milestone in the adoption process.⁵⁰
Formal Adoption and Designation: If a weapon successfully passes State Trials, a recommendation for adoption is made to the government. The final step is the issuance of a formal government decree officially adopting the weapon into service with the Armed Forces.⁴³ Upon adoption, the weapon is assigned an official designation by the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate (GRAU). This GRAU index (e.g., 6P70 for the AK-12) becomes its formal military identifier, distinct from its factory or design name.⁵³

Phase 4: Production and Fielding

With the weapon officially adopted, the lifecycle moves to mass production and distribution to the armed forces.

Production: Production is carried out at state-owned manufacturing plants, such as the Kalashnikov facilities in Izhevsk, based on quantities and timelines specified in the annual State Defence Orders (GOZ).³⁴ The state-controlled nature of the industry allows the government to directly manage production priorities and output volume.
Fielding: Similar to the U.S. model, new Russian weapon systems are typically fielded in a phased manner. The first recipients are almost always elite, high-readiness units such as the VDV (Airborne Troops), Naval Infantry, and Spetsnaz formations.⁹ The distribution of the Ratnik combat system followed this pattern, with these premier units being equipped first.⁵⁴ However, the process of equipping the broader ground forces is often extremely slow and incomplete. Due to the immense size of the Russian military, budgetary constraints, and the existence of vast stockpiles of older but still serviceable weapons, it can take many years for a new rifle to see widespread use. It is common to see regular motorized rifle units still equipped with older AK-74s, or even mobilized personnel with obsolete weapons like the Mosin-Nagant, long after a new system like the AK-12 has been adopted.⁴¹

Section 3. Case Study: The Ratnik Combat System and the AK-12

The Ratnik (“Warrior”) program and the associated adoption of the AK-12 rifle provide a clear illustration of the modern Russian adoption lifecycle, highlighting its priorities, competitive dynamics, and ultimate preference for evolutionary pragmatism.

The Need: The Ratnik program was Russia’s comprehensive effort to modernize the individual soldier, analogous to Western “future soldier” programs. It was conceived as a holistic system integrating advanced body armor (6B45), helmets (6B47), and modern communication and navigation equipment (“Strelets” system).⁵⁴ A critical component of this system was a new, modernized service rifle to replace the aging AK-74M.⁵⁵
The Process: The rifle competition for the Ratnik program saw two main contenders: the Kalashnikov Concern’s AK-12, a project to thoroughly modernize the AK platform, and the A-545 from the Degtyarev Plant, which was a refined version of the earlier AEK-971 featuring a sophisticated balanced-recoil system designed to significantly reduce felt recoil and improve controllability in automatic fire.⁴⁴
The trials were protracted. The initial version of the AK-12 was heavily criticized by the military for its cost and perceived lack of significant improvement over the AK-74M, forcing Kalashnikov to go back and extensively redesign the rifle into a more practical and cost-effective form.
Ultimately, the Russian MoD made a pragmatic choice that perfectly encapsulates its underlying philosophy. The redesigned AK-12, which was simpler, more familiar to the troops, and less expensive to produce, was selected as the new standard-issue rifle for general-purpose forces. In a telling compromise, the more complex and expensive A-545 was also adopted, but only in limited numbers for issuance to special forces units who could better leverage its performance advantages and manage its increased complexity.⁴¹ This dual-track adoption demonstrates a clear prioritization of cost and simplicity for the mass army, while still providing advanced capabilities to elite units.
The Outcome: The Ratnik system as a whole represents a significant and necessary modernization of the Russian soldier’s individual equipment. However, its small arms component, the AK-12, is a clear example of evolutionary, not revolutionary, development. It enhances the proven AK platform with modern features but does not fundamentally change its operation or capabilities in the way a new caliber would. Furthermore, the fielding of both the Ratnik gear and the AK-12 has been inconsistent. While elite units have been largely equipped, many regular and mobilized units deployed in Ukraine continue to be seen with older AK-74s, highlighting the logistical and financial challenges of modernizing such a large force.⁴¹

Section 4. Analysis of the Russian Model: Strengths and Endemic Weaknesses

The Russian state-directed adoption lifecycle possesses a unique set of advantages and disadvantages that are a direct result of its centralized structure and doctrinal priorities.

Pros:

Simplicity and Potential for Speed: When the state deems a program a high priority, the top-down, centralized process can be significantly faster and less bureaucratically encumbered than the multi-layered U.S. system. It eliminates the need for inter-service consensus and lengthy public contracting procedures.
Cost-Effectiveness and Mass Production: The focus on evolutionary upgrades of proven designs, combined with state control over pricing and production, keeps manufacturing costs relatively low. This enables the procurement of weapons in large quantities, consistent with the doctrine of equipping a mass army.⁵²
Rapid Production Scaling: The state-managed “war economy” model allows the government to direct the OPK to rapidly increase production during a conflict, retooling factories and running them 24/7, unconstrained by the profit motives or market limitations that affect Western commercial firms.³³
Exceptional Reliability: The doctrinal emphasis on simplicity and the rigorous nature of State Trials ensure that the weapons that are ultimately fielded are exceptionally durable, tolerant of abuse and neglect, and reliable in the most extreme conditions.³¹

Cons:

Stifled Innovation: The lack of genuine market competition, combined with the powerful institutional inertia of the Kalashnikov platform, creates a system that is resistant to radical innovation. The path of least resistance is to incrementally improve the existing design rather than to invest in high-risk, potentially revolutionary new concepts.⁴²
Systemic Corruption: The opaque nature of the Russian defense budget and the GOZ procurement process creates significant opportunities for corruption. This can lead to the misallocation of funds, inflated costs, and compromises in the quality of materials and manufacturing, ultimately impacting the performance of the final product.³⁹
Inconsistent Quality Control: While the underlying designs are famously robust, the pressures of meeting state-ordered production quotas, especially during wartime, combined with supply chain disruptions and a less-skilled workforce, can lead to significant inconsistencies in manufacturing quality and final assembly.⁴⁰
Vulnerability to Sanctions: The Russian OPK, despite its legacy, has a critical dependence on foreign-made components, particularly in high-tech areas like microelectronics for optics and precision machine tools for advanced manufacturing. International sanctions can sever these supply chains, forcing Russian industry to simplify designs, find lower-quality domestic or third-party substitutes, or halt production of its most advanced systems altogether.⁴⁰

Part III: Comparative Analysis and Future Outlook

The small arms adoption lifecycles of the United States and the Russian Federation are not merely different sets of procedures; they are reflections of fundamentally divergent approaches to warfare, industrial organization, and technological development. The U.S. system is an expensive, slow, but innovative engine designed to produce a decisive technological edge. The Russian system is a pragmatic, state-controlled machine designed to equip a massive force with reliable, familiar tools. The realities of modern, high-intensity conflict and the rapid pace of technological change are now challenging the core assumptions of both models.

Section 1. A Juxtaposition of Lifecycles: Process, Pace, and Priorities

The fundamental differences between the two systems can be most clearly understood through a direct, side-by-side comparison of their key characteristics. The following table distills the detailed analysis from the preceding sections into a concise framework, highlighting the stark contrasts in philosophy and execution that define each nation’s approach. This allows for a rapid, at-a-glance understanding of the core dichotomies that drive the two systems, such as the tension between market competition and state directive, or the pursuit of technological overmatch versus the necessity of mass production.

Feature Category	United States	Russian Federation
Primary Driver	Addressing a “Capability Gap” against a peer adversary.⁶	Fulfilling a state-defined need, often an incremental modernization of existing systems.³⁷
Governing Philosophy	Technological Overmatch: Seeking a decisive, qualitative edge.¹	Mass & Reliability: Equipping a large force with simple, robust, “good enough” weapons.³¹
Requirements Process	Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS): Bottom-up, consensus-driven, bureaucratic.¹²	Ministry of Defence Directive: Top-down, centralized, and direct.³⁸
Industry Model	Competitive Free Market: Multiple private companies bid on government contracts.⁶	State-Directed Economy: State-owned design bureaus fulfill government orders.³³
Key Decision Authority	Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) for requirements; Program Executive Office (PEO) for acquisition.¹²	Ministry of Defence, culminating in a government decree for adoption.⁴³
Testing Philosophy	Iterative & User-Focused: Extensive lab tests plus continuous “Soldier Touch Points”.²²	Culminating & Verificational: Rigorous, state-controlled “State Trials” as a final exam.⁵⁰
Pace & Timeline	Extremely slow and protracted; often 10+ years from concept to fielding.⁹	Can be rapid when prioritized by the state, but often slow due to funding/bureaucracy.
Typical Cost	Extremely high, driven by R&D, competition, and advanced technology.²⁹	Relatively low, focused on leveraging existing designs and economies of scale.⁵²
End Result	A technologically advanced, often complex “system of systems” for select forces.³	An evolutionary, robust, and familiar weapon intended for mass fielding.⁴¹

Section 2. The Impact of Modern Warfare: Lessons from Ukraine and Beyond

The ongoing war in Ukraine has served as a brutal, real-world laboratory for modern conventional warfare, providing invaluable lessons that are forcing both the U.S. and Russia to re-evaluate their doctrines, technologies, and procurement priorities.

The Transparent Battlefield: Perhaps the most profound lesson is the emergence of the “transparent battlefield.” The unprecedented proliferation of unmanned aerial systems (UAS)—ranging from inexpensive, commercially-derived first-person view (FPV) drones used as precision munitions to sophisticated, long-endurance intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms—has made it exceedingly difficult for ground forces to achieve surprise or to mass without being detected and targeted.⁶⁰ This reality has immediate implications for small arms and infantry tactics. It elevates the importance of signature reduction, making effective suppressors an essential piece of equipment rather than an optional accessory, as their ability to mask a soldier’s position from acoustic detection is critical for survival.²⁸ It also creates a new requirement for individual soldiers to be able to engage and defeat small, fast-moving aerial threats, a task for which traditional iron sights are wholly inadequate.
U.S. Lessons Learned: For the United States and its allies, the conflict has been a sobering reminder of the realities of industrial-scale warfare. Observers note that the U.S. military’s emphasis on maneuver warfare is being challenged by the Russian model of attritional, artillery-centric combat.⁶⁰ The conflict has underscored the immense consumption rates of ammunition and equipment in a peer-level fight, calling into question the sustainability of the Western model, which often favors small quantities of expensive, “exquisite” systems over large stockpiles of more basic munitions.⁶² The war validates the U.S. pursuit of networked warfare and precision fires, but it also highlights a critical need for a more agile and responsive acquisition system that can rapidly field countermeasures to new threats, like the swarms of FPV drones, and for an industrial base capable of surging production to meet the demands of a protracted conflict.⁶⁰
Russian Lessons Learned: Russia has been forced to learn and adapt under the extreme pressures of combat and international sanctions. The war has starkly exposed the endemic weaknesses in its logistics, the inconsistent quality of its mass-produced equipment, and the shortcomings of its rigid, centralized command structure.⁴⁰ However, it has also demonstrated Russia’s considerable capacity for adaptation and resilience. The Russian military-industrial complex has shifted to a war footing, retooling civilian factories to mass-produce drones and simplifying weapon designs to accelerate output.⁶⁰ Russian forces on the ground have adapted their tactics, learning to integrate drones directly into their artillery kill chains and adopting a brutal but effective attritional model that leverages their advantage in mass over Ukraine’s qualitative edge.⁶⁰ This real-world combat experience is already feeding back into their development cycle, as evidenced by the field-testing of new systems like the AM-17 rifle in Ukraine, allowing for rapid, data-driven design refinements.⁵⁰

Section 3. The Future Battlefield: Networked Lethality and Systemic Adaptation

The infantry weapon of the future will be defined less by its mechanical properties and more by its integration into a wider digital network. The trends in fire control, connectivity, and materials science are poised to trigger the most significant shift in small arms capability since the advent of the assault rifle.

The Rise of the Smart Weapon and Networked Sights: The future of small arms is not the rifle itself, but the rifle as a node in a networked system. The U.S. Army’s XM157 NGSW-Fire Control is the vanguard of this transformation.²⁸ It is not merely an optic; it is an integrated combat solution. By combining a variable-power magnified optic with a laser rangefinder, a ballistic calculator, a suite of atmospheric sensors, and a digital overlay, the XM157 automatically generates a disturbed reticle that gives the soldier a precise, corrected aiming point for a target at any range.²⁸ This technology dramatically increases the first-round hit probability for the average soldier, effectively extending their lethal range and compensating for errors in range estimation and environmental factors.
Connectivity, AI, and the Squad as a Sensor Network: The next logical step, already in development, is to network these smart sights. Through systems like the U.S. Army’s Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS), data from an individual soldier’s sight—such as the location of a lased target—can be instantly shared across the squad and pushed to higher echelons or other assets, such as loitering munitions or artillery.²⁸ This transforms the infantry squad into a distributed sensor-shooter network, drastically compressing the kill chain. Artificial intelligence will play an increasing role in this ecosystem, assisting with automated target detection and identification, prioritizing threats, and deconflicting engagements to prevent fratricide.⁶³
Advanced Materials and Manufacturing: Concurrent advances in materials science and manufacturing will further revolutionize small arms design. The development of new alloys, polymers, and composites will enable the creation of lighter, stronger, and more durable weapons.⁶⁴ Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, holds the potential to disrupt the traditional logistics chain by allowing for the on-demand fabrication of spare parts, specialized components, or even entire weapon receivers in forward-deployed locations, significantly enhancing operational readiness and enabling rapid design iteration.⁶

Implications for Future Adoption Lifecycles:

For the United States: The “system-of-systems” approach pioneered by the NGSW program is the clear path forward. Future U.S. small arms adoptions will be less about selecting a firearm in isolation and more about acquiring a fully integrated package of weapon, ammunition, fire control, and network connectivity. The primary challenge for the U.S. will be to reform its slow, risk-averse procurement process to make it agile enough to keep pace with the rapid, software-driven evolution of electronics and AI, which have much shorter development cycles than traditional hardware.⁸
For the Russian Federation: Russia faces the significant risk of being left behind in this technological arms race. While it continues to produce excellent mechanical firearms and is developing integrated soldier systems like Ratnik, its small arms remain fundamentally analog devices. The primary challenge for Russia will be to develop and integrate advanced electro-optics and networking capabilities into its platforms without compromising its core doctrinal tenets of simplicity and reliability. This challenge is magnified by international sanctions that severely restrict its access to the Western-made high-end microelectronics and processors that are essential for developing advanced fire control systems.⁵⁷

Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The analysis of the United States and Russian small arms adoption lifecycles reveals two systems that are logical products of their distinct strategic cultures, industrial capacities, and geopolitical realities. Neither system is inherently superior; each is optimized to achieve different objectives and possesses a unique profile of strengths and weaknesses.

The U.S. system is a complex, market-driven engine designed to produce revolutionary technological breakthroughs. Its slow, deliberative, and costly nature is a direct consequence of its ambition to achieve and maintain “technological overmatch.” The result, exemplified by the NGSW program, is a weapon system that can redefine battlefield dynamics by providing individual soldiers with an unprecedented leap in lethality. However, this system’s ponderous pace and immense expense make it vulnerable to rapidly emerging, low-cost threats and the attritional demands of high-intensity warfare.

The Russian system is a state-directed apparatus designed to sustain a massive military force with reliable, cost-effective, and familiar equipment. Its philosophy of evolutionary design, centered on the proven Kalashnikov platform, ensures logistical simplicity and the ability to produce weapons at scale. The conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated the resilience of this mass-based approach, showing that quantity has a quality all its own. However, this same system suffers from a path-dependent inertia that stifles innovation, leaving it at a growing disadvantage in a technological competition and vulnerable to supply chain disruptions for critical components.

The conflict in Ukraine offers a stark preview of future warfare, where the technological sophistication of Western-backed systems collides with the attritional resilience of Russian mass. The lessons are clear: future success will require a synthesis of both quality and quantity, of technological superiority and industrial endurance.

Based on this analysis, the following strategic recommendations are offered for the United States and its allies:

Accelerate Procurement Reform for Agility: The DoD must aggressively continue efforts to streamline the acquisition process, particularly for rapidly evolving technologies like software, AI, and counter-UAS systems. Expanding the use of flexible authorities like OTAs and creating pathways for non-traditional innovators to bridge the “valley of death” are critical to ensuring that the U.S. can field new capabilities at the speed of relevance, not at the pace of bureaucracy.
Invest in Scalable Industrial Capacity: The pursuit of “exquisite” overmatch capabilities must be balanced with a realistic assessment of the logistical demands of a peer-level conflict. The U.S. and its allies must invest in modernizing and expanding the industrial base to ensure it can surge production of key munitions, small arms, and spare parts. This includes securing supply chains for critical materials and re-evaluating the trade-offs between a few highly advanced systems and larger quantities of “good enough” platforms.
Prioritize the Networked Soldier: The future of infantry lethality lies in the network. Investment should continue to prioritize the development and fielding of integrated systems like the NGSW and IVAS, which transform the individual soldier from an isolated shooter into a networked sensor and effector. Doctrine, training, and leader development must evolve to fully exploit the capabilities of these new systems.
Maintain Vigilant Intelligence of Adversary Adaptation: Russia’s ability to adapt its industrial base and tactics under the extreme pressure of war should not be underestimated. The U.S. and its partners must maintain a continuous and detailed intelligence effort to monitor Russian technological developments, industrial adaptations, and the lessons they are incorporating from the battlefield. Understanding how an adversary leverages “good enough” technology at scale is crucial for developing effective countermeasures and avoiding strategic surprise.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

Works cited

Achieved Overmatch: A Potential Future for AI in the Army, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/JA-25/Achieved-Overmatch/Achieved-Overmatch-ua.pdf
Project Convergence: Achieving Overmatch by Solving Joint Problems, accessed August 15, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2807194/project-convergence-achieving-overmatch-by-solving-joint-problems/
Next Generation Squad Weapon – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Squad_Weapon
Army Making Big Push to Update Small Arms – National Defense Magazine, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/10/28/army-making-big-push-to-update-small-arms
– UNITED STATES MILITARY SMALL ARMS REQUIREMENTS – GovInfo, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg34118/html/CHRG-115shrg34118.htm
What would it take for the US military to adopt a new small arms system, and what are the biggest hurdles to making that happen? – Quora, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-for-the-US-military-to-adopt-a-new-small-arms-system-and-what-are-the-biggest-hurdles-to-making-that-happen
DOD Acquisition Processes – Clinton White House, accessed August 15, 2025, https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/pcscb/rmo_dod.html
Defense Department’s Updated Procurement Process Allows Quicker Access to Private Sector AI Products – Wiley Rein LLP, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.wiley.law/newsletter-Defense-Departments-Updated-Procurement-Process-Allows-Quicker-Access-to-Private-Sector-AI-Products
How long has it taken for various militaries to roll out new equipment over the years? Who gets them first? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/10csfab/how_long_has_it_taken_for_various_militaries_to/
Hearing Wrap Up: Government Procurement Process Must Modernize to Boost Defense Innovation – United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, accessed August 15, 2025, https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-government-procurement-process-must-modernize-to-boost-defense-innovation/
Joint Service Small Arms Program – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Service_Small_Arms_Program
Defense Primer: Joint Capabilities Integration and Development …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12817
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Capabilities_Integration_and_Development_System
XM17 Modular Handgun System competition – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM17_Modular_Handgun_System_competition
Improving the JCIDS Process | www.dau.edu, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dau.edu/library/damag/november-december2018/improving-jcids-process
DODIG-2013-131 Army Requirement to Acquire Individual Carbine Not Justified – Department of Defense, accessed August 15, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2013/Sep/16/2001713304/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2013-131.pdf
New Report: Abolish JCIDS, Replace with Bottom-Up Approach, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/new-report-abolish-jcids-joint-requirements-process/
GAO-22-104432, WEAPON SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS: Joint Staff Lacks Reliable Data on the Effectiveness of Its Revised Joint Approval Pr, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104432.pdf
PEO Soldier – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEO_Soldier
Project Manager Soldier Lethality (PM SL), accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Program-Offices/Project-Manager-Soldier-Lethality/
Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON) for Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW), accessed August 15, 2025, https://sam.gov/opp/e31a67310e833d2d5fcbcdc3aaa54897/view
Army moving forward with Next Generation Squad Weapon program | Article, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/264799/army_moving_forward_with_next_generation_squad_weapon_program
Some Background On How The Military Procures Equipment | Soldier Systems Daily, accessed August 15, 2025, https://soldiersystems.net/2025/03/20/some-background-on-how-the-military-procures-equipment/
Revolutionizing operational testing: The Next Generation Squad …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/286308/revolutionizing_operational_testing_the_next_generation_squad_weapon_expeditionary_operational_assessment
Army embraces full life-cycle approach to modernizing and sustaining equipment, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/251307/army_embraces_full_life_cycle_approach_to_modernizing_and_sustaining_equipment
Small Arms – DLA, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dla.mil/Disposition-Services/DDSR/Turn-In/Turn-In-Toolbox/Small-Arms/
Joint Small Arms Technology Development Strategy for Joint Service Small Arms Science and Technology Investments – DTIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1004913.pdf
Small arms sights and fire control systems developments, accessed August 15, 2025, https://euro-sd.com/2025/02/articles/42724/small_arms_sights_and_fire_control_systems/
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer Program Acquisition Cost by Weapon System March 2, accessed August 15, 2025, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2025/FY2025_Weapons.pdf
Slow and Steady is Losing the Defense Acquisition Race – Government Executive, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.govexec.com/feature/slow-and-steady-losing-defense-acquisition-race/
Rusty Weapons: Myths About Russian Small Arms | Weapons with ‪@StarskyUA‬ – YouTube, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewVPa9mAh8
Russian Military Strategy: Core Tenets and Operational Concepts – CNA.org., accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.cna.org/reports/2021/08/Russian-Military-Strategy-Core-Tenets-and-Operational-Concepts.pdf
Arms industry of Russia – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry_of_Russia
Kalashnikov Concern – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalashnikov_Concern
TsNIITochMash – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TsNIITochMash
KBP Instrument Design Bureau – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBP_Instrument_Design_Bureau
How Soviet Union designed and adopted small arms and other weapons – YouTube, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L99pKBX6Cc8
Russia’s Role as an Arms Exporter – Chatham House, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2017-03-20-russia-arms-exporter-connolly-sendstad.pdf
Defense Acquisition in Russia and China – RAND, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA100/RRA113-1/RAND_RRA113-1.pdf
Russia’s struggle to modernize its military industry | Identifying the weaknesses in Russia’s military-industrial complex – Chatham House, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/07/russias-struggle-modernize-its-military-industry/identifying-weaknesses-russias-military
List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Russian_Ground_Forces
We often hear about the west, but where has Russian small arms development gone since the collapse of the USSR? – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/fegp2m/we_often_hear_about_the_west_but_where_has/
Kalashnikov: AK-12 Adopted by Rosgvardiya, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.kalashnikovgroup.ru/news/kalashnikov-ak-12-adopted-by-rosgvardiya
The Russian military wants to adopt this brand new Kalashnikov assault rifle, accessed August 15, 2025, https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russian-military-wants-adopt-brand-160957402.html
Military doctrine of Russia – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine_of_Russia
Principles of Russian Military Thought | Ústav mezinárodních vztahů – Expertise to impact, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.iir.cz/principles-of-russian-military-thought
TsNIITochMash Offers Small Arms with High Export Potential – Kalashnikov Group, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.kalashnikovgroup.ru/news/tsniitochmash-offers-small-arms-with-high-export-potential
New Russian Pistols Vie for Military Adoption – Small Arms Defense …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://sadefensejournal.com/new-russian-pistols-vie-for-military-adoption/
AK400, the new assault rifle model from the Kalashnikov Concern – All4Shooters.com, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/pro-zone/concern-kalashnikov-ak-400-assault-rifle/
Kalashnikov: AM-17 State Trials Completed – Kalashnikov Group, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.kalashnikovgroup.ru/news/kalashnikov-am-17-state-trials-completed
Adoption into service, authorization for operational use, and codification of new weapons and military equipment: The Ministry of Defence clarifies concepts and differences | MoD News, accessed August 15, 2025, https://mod.gov.ua/en/news/adoption-into-service-authorization-for-operational-use-and-codification-of-new-weapons-and-military-equipment-the-ministry-of-defence-clarifies-concepts-and-differences
AKM and RPK Adopted by Army 65 Years Ago – Kalashnikov Group, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.kalashnikovgroup.ru/news/akm-and-rpk-adopted-by-army-65-years-ago
Main Missile and Artillery Directorate – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Missile_and_Artillery_Directorate
‘Ratnik’ system improving the battle space situation awareness, connectivity, survivability and combat effectiveness of Russian Army – International Defense Security & Technology, accessed August 15, 2025, https://idstch.com/military/army/ratnik-system-improving-battle-space-situation-awareness-connectivity-survivability-combat-effectiveness-russian-army/
Ratnik: Russia’s Modern Warrior Program – Grey Dynamics, accessed August 15, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/ratnik-russias-modern-warrior-program/
Ratnik (program) – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratnik_(program)
Russia’s struggle to modernize its military industry | Conclusion, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/07/russias-struggle-modernize-its-military-industry/conclusion
Corruption in the Russian Defense Sector – World Peace Foundation, accessed August 15, 2025, https://worldpeacefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Russian-Defense-Corruption-Report-Beliakova-Perlo-Freeman-20180502-final.pdf
The Impact of Sanctions and Alliances on Russian Military Capabilities – RUSI, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/impact-sanctions-and-alliances-russian-military-capabilities
What the US Army is learning from Russian losses in Ukraine, accessed August 15, 2025, https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/army-russia-ukraine-lessons-learned/
A Long, Hard Year: Russia-Ukraine War Lessons Learned 2023 …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/3890256/a-long-hard-year-russia-ukraine-war-lessons-learned-2023/
CMV: The US is not ready for a peer/near peer war of attrition : r/changemyview – Reddit, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bbmz86/cmv_the_us_is_not_ready_for_a_peernear_peer_war/
The Future of the Battlefield – Office of the Director of National …, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/gt2040-deeper-looks/future-of-the-battlefield
Advanced Materials and Manufacturing – Implications for Defence to 2040 | DST, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/publication/advanced-materials-and-manufacturing-%E2%80%93-implications-defence-2040

Analytics and Reports, History, Russia and also USSR, Russian & Soviet Analytics

Nadyozhnost’: How the Soviet Doctrine of Reliability Forged the Red Army’s Arsenal

August 3, 2025 RoninsGrips

The Western perception of Soviet and Russian weaponry has long been colored by a simplistic and often dismissive maxim: “crude but effective.” This phrase, while containing a kernel of truth, fundamentally misunderstands the sophisticated and deeply pragmatic philosophy that underpinned the design and production of the Soviet Union’s vast arsenal. The defining characteristics of Soviet arms—their ruggedness, operational simplicity, and the sheer, overwhelming numbers in which they were produced—were not the accidental byproducts of a lagging technological base. Rather, they were the deliberate and meticulously engineered outcomes of a coherent national strategy, a philosophy forged in the crucible of revolution, civil war, and the existential struggle of the Great Patriotic War.¹

This report will deconstruct the Soviet military doctrine of reliability, moving beyond superficial analysis to reveal a completely integrated, self-reinforcing system where political ideology, military strategy, industrial capacity, and human factors converged. This system was built upon three interconnected pillars, concepts that were not merely engineering guidelines but strategic imperatives:

Надёжность (Nadyozhnost’) – Reliability: This term signifies more than a simple absence of malfunctions. It represents an absolute, uncompromising, and predictable functionality under the worst imaginable conditions of combat and environment. It is the core virtue from which all other design considerations flow.
Простота (Prostota) – Simplicity: This principle denotes a radical simplicity that permeated every aspect of a weapon’s life cycle. It encompassed ease of manufacture by a semi-skilled workforce, intuitive operation by a minimally trained conscript, and straightforward field maintenance with the most basic of tools, if any at all.
Массовое производство (Massovoye proizvodstvo) – Mass Production: This was not simply an industrial goal but a central tenet of Soviet military art. The ability to achieve overwhelming numerical superiority in men and materiel at the decisive point of conflict was seen as a prerequisite for victory.

To fully comprehend the engineering of a T-34 tank or an AK-47 rifle, one must first understand the high-level military doctrine that created the demand for such weapons. This analysis will begin by examining the foundational principles of Soviet military thought, exploring how the unique nature of its strategic outlook dictated the required characteristics of its hardware. It will then trace the crystallization of this design philosophy during the brutal fighting on the Eastern Front, where theoretical doctrine was hammered into hard-won engineering wisdom. Through detailed case studies of iconic weapon systems from World War II and the Cold War, this report will demonstrate how these principles were made manifest in steel. Finally, it will follow the evolution of this doctrine into the Cold War, showing how it was perfected and ultimately became a technological path with both profound strengths and inherent limitations.

Section 1: The Doctrinal Imperative: The Nature of Soviet Warfare

The design of any nation’s military hardware is ultimately a response to a demand signal sent from its highest strategic echelons. In the Soviet Union, this signal was exceptionally clear, powerful, and all-encompassing. Soviet weapon design cannot be understood as a purely technical exercise; it was a direct and logical extension of the state’s official theory of war, the operational art of its generals, and the fundamental nature of the army it was meant to equip.

Subsection 1.1: Военная доктрина (Voyennaya doktrina) – The State’s Theory of War

In Western military thought, “doctrine” often refers to the accumulated best practices for employing forces on the battlefield. The Soviet concept of Военная доктрина (Voyennaya doktrina), or Military Doctrine, was far more profound and comprehensive. It was officially defined as “the Marxist-Leninist-based view accepted by the government on the nature of war, the use of armed forces in conflict, and the preparations of a country and its armed forces for war”.⁵¹ This was not a manual for generals but the state’s unified political and military policy, providing the moral and ideological justification for the entire defense establishment.⁵¹

This doctrine was composed of two distinct but inseparable dimensions: the socio-political and the military-technical.²

The Socio-Political Dimension: Formulated by the Communist Party leadership, this aspect defined the fundamental political context of any potential conflict. It addressed questions of who the likely enemies were (capitalist states) and the inherent nature of the war. According to Marxist-Leninist principles, a socialist state would never initiate a war, as the triumph of socialism over capitalism was seen as historically inevitable. Therefore, Soviet military doctrine was always framed as inherently defensive in its political character; war could only be forced upon the USSR by aggressive capitalist powers.²
The Military-Technical Dimension: Developed by the professional military and the General Staff, this aspect dictated how the armed forces should be structured, equipped, and employed to win such a war. In stark contrast to its “defensive” political framing, the military-technical side of the doctrine was ruthlessly and unequivocally offensive. Should war be initiated by the West, the Soviet military’s objective was to absorb the initial blow and then launch a massive, decisive, and war-winning counter-offensive aimed at the complete destruction of the enemy’s military and political capacity.²

This dual nature created a clear and demanding set of requirements for the Soviet military-industrial complex. The armed forces had to be large and resilient enough to survive a potential first strike, yet powerful and mobile enough to immediately seize the strategic initiative and carry the fight to the enemy’s territory. This necessitated a massive, well-equipped, and combat-ready defense establishment, and the doctrine served to rationalize the immense allocation of national resources required to sustain it.⁵¹

Subsection 1.2: The Principles of Deep Battle and High-Tempo Operations

The military-technical expression of Soviet doctrine was codified in a set of operational principles designed to execute the decisive counter-offensive. Evolving from the pre-war theory of “Deep Battle” (glubokiy boy), these principles emphasized shock, momentum, and mass to overwhelm and paralyze the enemy. The seven core principles of Soviet tactical doctrine were mobility, concentration of effort, surprise, combat activeness, preservation of forces, conformity of the goal, and coordination.³ Of these, two had the most direct and profound impact on weapon design.

First was the principle of Mobility and high rates of combat operations. Soviet operational art envisioned warfare as a continuous, unrelenting series of actions. The goal was to maintain constant pressure, to “crowd” the opponent, and to deny them any opportunity to establish a coherent defense, regroup, or seize the initiative. Combat was expected to continue without pause, regardless of weather, visibility, or terrain.³ This demanded a fully mechanized force, from tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to self-propelled artillery and air defense. The engineering implication was clear: every piece of equipment had to be mechanically robust enough to sustain continuous, high-intensity operations across the vast and punishing landscapes of continental Europe with minimal downtime. A technologically sophisticated tank that required frequent, complex maintenance was a liability in a doctrine that prized ceaseless forward momentum above all else.¹

Second was the principle of Concentration of main efforts and creation of superiority in forces and means, a concept encapsulated by the term Массирование (Massirovanie), or “massing”.³ This was the premier method by which Soviet commanders sought to achieve victory. It was not merely about having a larger army in total, but about the ability to rapidly concentrate overwhelming combat power at a decisive point and time to shatter the enemy’s front. This required both a high degree of coordination and, most critically, a vast quantity of equipment. To achieve

massirovanie, one must first have mass. This doctrinal imperative was the primary driver behind the colossal output of the Soviet defense industry. The production of 98,300 tanks and self-propelled guns during World War II, and over 50,000 tanks in the two decades after 1965, was not industrial over-exuberance; it was the literal fulfillment of a core doctrinal requirement.⁴ You cannot concentrate forces you do not possess.

Subsection 1.3: The Conscript and the Commissar: The Human Factor

The final piece of the doctrinal puzzle was the human element. The Soviet military was, by design and necessity, a mass conscript army. Under the system of general conscription, all able-bodied males were drafted into service, creating a numerically vast force.⁶ However, the quality of this force, particularly at the individual and small-unit level, was a persistent challenge. Soviet military training, a system with deep institutional roots, often prioritized political indoctrination and rote memorization over the development of tactical initiative.⁷

Conscripts were trained to execute a set of simple, well-rehearsed battle drills that they could perform by instinct under the stress of combat.⁹ While effective for large-scale, choreographed operations directed from above, this system, combined with a historically weak NCO corps, did not cultivate the kind of adaptable, problem-solving soldier common in Western armies.⁹ The expectation was that units would act predictably and follow orders exactly, functioning as reliable cogs in a vast military machine.⁹

This reality placed a strict and non-negotiable constraint on weapon designers. Equipment had to be designed for the soldier the army had, not the soldier it might wish for. This meant weapons had to be, in the stark assessment of one observer, simple enough for an “illiterate peasant” to learn how to use and maintain.¹ Complexity was the enemy. Controls had to be large, intuitive, and operable with gloved hands. Field maintenance had to be achievable with a minimum of tools and training. A firearm that required intricate disassembly procedures or delicate handling was fundamentally unsuited for the Red Army soldier and the doctrine he was trained to execute.¹¹

The interplay between these factors created a remarkably coherent and self-reinforcing system. The state’s political-military doctrine demanded a strategy of high-tempo, mass-based offensive warfare. This strategy, in turn, required a massive conscript army to provide the necessary numbers. The practical realities of training and employing such an army created an ironclad requirement for weapons that were radically simple to operate and maintain. To equip this vast force for a brutal war of attrition, the nation’s industrial base had to be optimized for sheer quantity, which further reinforced the need for simple designs that could be fabricated quickly by a less-skilled workforce in non-specialized factories. The resulting arsenal of simple, reliable, mass-produced weapons was, therefore, the perfect toolset for a doctrine predicated on overwhelming the enemy with numbers and relentless, grinding pressure. Each element—political, military, human, and industrial—logically necessitated and reinforced the others, creating a closed loop of doctrinal and engineering logic.

Section 2: The Philosophy Forged in Fire: Lessons of the Great Patriotic War

If pre-war doctrine provided the theoretical blueprint for Soviet weaponry, the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) was the forge in which that theory was hammered into unyielding steel. The brutal, existential struggle on the Eastern Front provided a series of harsh, undeniable lessons that transformed abstract principles into a concrete and ruthlessly pragmatic design philosophy. The concepts of reliability, simplicity, and mass production ceased to be mere preferences; they became the absolute prerequisites for national survival.

Subsection 2.1: Надёжность (Nadyozhnost’) – Absolute Reliability as the Paramount Virtue

On the Eastern Front, the environment itself was an active combatant. The biannual распу́тица (rasputitsa), or “season of bad roads,” transformed the vast, unpaved landscape into an ocean of deep, clinging mud that could paralyze entire armies. Wheeled transport became useless, and tanks with narrow tracks and high ground pressure would bog down and become easy targets.⁵² This was followed by the merciless Russian winter, personified as “General Winter,” where temperatures plummeting to -40°C or below could freeze the lubricants in a weapon’s action, cause improperly formulated steel to become brittle and fracture, and disable complex mechanical or hydraulic systems.¹³

In this context, the concept of Надёжность (Nadyozhnost’) took on a meaning far deeper than its English translation of “reliability.” It was not just about a low malfunction rate in ideal conditions. It was about guaranteed, predictable functionality in the worst imaginable circumstances. A rifle had to fire after being dropped in the mud of the rasputitsa. A tank’s engine had to start in the depths of winter. A machine gun had to cycle when caked with dust and neglected by an exhausted, freezing conscript. This is why Soviet weapons were often designed with specific environmental challenges in mind. The wide tracks of the T-34 tank were a direct answer to the mud and snow of the steppes.²⁴ The PPSh-41 submachine gun was designed with such generous clearances that it could function even without lubricant, a critical feature when standard oils would congeal into a thick paste in the cold.¹³ This obsession with performance in extreme conditions became institutionalized, with Soviet and later Russian facilities dedicated to testing weapons in simulated Arctic climates, subjecting them to temperatures from -60 to +60 degrees Celsius.⁵³ A weapon that could not pass these tests was not a weapon at all.

Subsection 2.2: Простота (Prostota) – Radical Simplicity

The German invasion of June 1941 was a catastrophe of unprecedented scale, forcing the Soviet Union to undertake a desperate and monumental industrial evacuation. Hundreds of critical factories were dismantled, loaded onto trains, and relocated east of the Ural Mountains, where they were often reassembled in open fields under punishing conditions.¹¹ This colossal disruption, coupled with the need to rapidly expand the workforce with less-skilled labor (often women and adolescents), placed an immense premium on designs that were simple to manufacture.

The principle of Простота (Prostota), or simplicity, was therefore applied across the entire production and operational chain.

Simplicity of Manufacture: Soviet designers aggressively pursued methods that minimized the need for complex, time-consuming machining and highly skilled labor. They favored designs that could be built using rough casting, heavy stamping of sheet metal, and extensive welding.⁵⁴ The PPSh-41 is the quintessential example. Its receiver was formed from a simple, U-shaped piece of stamped steel, and most of its components were joined by welding or riveting. This allowed it to be produced in repurposed automotive plants and other non-specialized workshops, a critical factor in achieving its massive production numbers. This stood in stark contrast to German manufacturing, which often relied on skilled craftsmen and precise machining, resulting in beautifully finished but time-consuming and expensive products.¹⁵
Simplicity of Operation: As dictated by the nature of the conscript army, weapons had to be foolproof. This translated into large, simple controls that were easy to manipulate with cold or gloved hands, a minimal number of firing modes, and intuitive procedures for loading and clearing the weapon.¹¹ The safety/selector switch on the AK-47, for example, is a large, positive lever that is unambiguous in its operation, even if it is not as ergonomic as Western designs.
Simplicity of Maintenance: In the chaos of the Eastern Front, weapons received brutal treatment and minimal care. Designs had to accommodate this reality. Field stripping needed to be possible with few or no tools, breaking the weapon down into a small number of large, robust components that were difficult to lose in the mud or snow. The Mosin-Nagant rifle, with its simple two-piece bolt body, and the AK-47, which can be disassembled in seconds, are prime examples of this philosophy.¹² The T-34’s track pins were designed without locking mechanisms; if a pin worked its way out, the crew could simply hammer it—or a new one—back into place with a sledgehammer, a crude but effective field repair.²³

Subsection 2.3: Массовое производство (Massovoye proizvodstvo) – The Primacy of Mass

The war on the Eastern Front was, above all, a war of attrition. Victory would not go to the side with the most technologically advanced tank, but to the side that could put the most tanks on the field and replace its staggering losses the fastest. This made Массовое производство (Massovoye proizvodstvo) the ultimate strategic weapon. Soviet industry was mobilized on a scale that dwarfed its German rival. Between 1941 and 1945, the USSR produced 19.8 million rifles, 525.5 thousand artillery pieces, and 98,300 tanks and self-propelled guns.⁴ The numbers for specific systems are even more telling: over 80,000 T-34s of all variants were built, compared to just 1,347 of the formidable but complex Tiger I heavy tanks.¹ Nearly 6 million PPSh-41 submachine guns were produced, more than twice the combined total of the German MP 40, American M3 “Grease Gun,” and Thompson submachine guns.

This incredible output was achieved by embracing a philosophy of “good enough.” Soviet designers understood that perfection was the enemy of the necessary. A crudely finished weld that held firm, a rough but functional bolt action, or abysmal crew ergonomics were all acceptable trade-offs if they meant a weapon worked reliably and could be produced in the colossal quantities demanded by the front.¹ This relentless focus on production efficiency yielded dramatic results; the man-hours required to build a T-34 were cut by half between 1941 and 1943, and its cost was similarly reduced, earning it the nickname the “Russian Model-T”.²⁶

This focus on quantity over individual quality created a strategic advantage that German planners, with their emphasis on technological superiority and precision engineering, failed to counter. A one-on-one comparison of a German Tiger and a Soviet T-34 reveals the Tiger’s clear tactical superiority in armor and firepower.²⁰ However, this tactical view misses the larger operational and strategic picture. The Tiger’s complexity was a form of strategic fragility. It required a vast network of specialized suppliers, highly skilled labor, and an intensive maintenance regimen, making its production and deployment vulnerable to disruption.¹¹ The loss of a single Tiger was a significant blow to a unit’s combat power.

The T-34, conversely, embodied a form of strategic resilience, or “anti-fragility.” Its very simplicity, often perceived as a weakness, was its greatest strength. It allowed production to be dispersed to various factories and rapidly scaled, even after the catastrophic loss of the original plants in Ukraine.²⁶ Its design facilitated crude but effective field repairs, keeping more tanks in the fight.²³ The Red Army could afford to lose T-34s at a horrific rate because it could replace them even faster. The Soviet system’s power was not in the perfection of its individual components, but in the unstoppable, overwhelming output of its entire industrial-military ecosystem. The “crudeness” was not a bug; it was a feature that enabled strategic victory.

Section 3: Case Studies in WWII Steel: Doctrine Made Manifest

The abstract principles of Soviet doctrine were given tangible form in the weapons that rolled out of the evacuated factories east of the Urals. Each design represented a series of deliberate engineering compromises, a balancing of performance, cost, and producibility dictated by the harsh realities of the war. An examination of the most iconic Soviet weapons of the era reveals not a lack of sophistication, but a different, brutally pragmatic kind of engineering genius.

Subsection 3.1: The T-34 Medium Tank – A Revolutionary Compromise

The T-34 is arguably the most influential tank design of the Second World War. It was not, however, a perfect weapon. Its genius lay not in achieving individual excellence in any one category, but in providing the best possible compromise of firepower, mobility, and protection in a package that was optimized for Массовое производство (Massovoye proizvodstvo).

Its design incorporated three revolutionary features for a medium tank of its time. First, its powerful 76.2mm main gun could defeat the armor of most German tanks in 1941.²⁴ Second, its use of the Christie suspension system, combined with a robust V-12 diesel engine and exceptionally wide tracks, gave it superb cross-country mobility, particularly in the deep mud and snow of the Eastern Front where narrower-tracked German Panzers would bog down.²⁴ Third, and most famously, its armor was sloped at angles up to 60 degrees. This simple geometric innovation dramatically increased the effective thickness of the armor plate without adding weight, causing many incoming anti-tank rounds to deflect harmlessly.²³

Despite these strengths, the T-34 was plagued with significant flaws, especially in its early production models. The initial two-man turret was cramped and inefficient, forcing the tank commander to also act as the gunner, severely reducing his situational awareness and ability to command.¹¹ The transmission and clutch were notoriously unreliable, requiring immense strength to operate and prone to catastrophic failure; it was said that drivers often had to use a hammer to shift gears.¹¹ Early models also lacked radios in most tanks, forcing commanders to rely on signal flags, a disastrous handicap in fluid armored combat.²³

The key to the T-34’s success was the relentless rationalization of its production. Initial manufacturing at the Kharkov factory was complex and slow.⁵⁵ However, as production was dispersed to facilities like the Stalingrad Tractor Factory and Uralvagonzavod, the design was continuously simplified to speed up output. Complex welded turrets were replaced with simpler, faster-to-produce cast turrets. When rubber shortages hit, rubber-rimmed road wheels were replaced with all-steel versions. The overall fit and finish were notoriously poor, with visible weld seams and gaps between armor plates, but as long as the tank was functional, it was deemed acceptable.²⁶ This process of simplification allowed the Soviets to produce over 80,000 T-34s, creating a numerical superiority that the Germans could never overcome.

Subsection 3.2: The PPSh-41 Submachine Gun – The People’s “Burp Gun”

If the T-34 was the symbol of Soviet mechanized might, the Pistolet-Pulemyot Shpagina model 1941, or PPSh-41, was the weapon of the common soldier. Designed by Georgy Shpagin, it was a direct response to the need for a submachine gun that was cheaper and faster to produce than its predecessor, the milled-steel PPD-40. The PPSh-41 was a masterclass in Простота (Prostota) and Массовое производство (Massovoye proizvodstvo).

Its construction was revolutionary for Soviet small arms at the time. The receiver and barrel shroud were made from stamped sheet metal, a process that was fast, cheap, and required less-skilled labor than traditional milling.⁵⁴ This allowed production to be farmed out to a vast network of factories, including automotive plants that were already experts in metal stamping.⁵⁴ The result was a weapon that could be produced in an astonishing 7.3 man-hours, nearly half the time required for the PPD-40.⁵⁶

The weapon’s characteristics were perfectly suited to Soviet infantry doctrine. Its incredibly high rate of fire, often exceeding 900 rounds per minute, combined with a large-capacity 71-round drum magazine, provided immense firepower for close-quarters combat. It was not a weapon of precision, but of saturation. In the brutal, room-to-room fighting of Stalingrad or the massed “human wave” assaults across open ground, the PPSh-41’s ability to fill an area with lead was invaluable.³¹ Its simple blowback action was extremely reliable and tolerant of dirt and fouling. So effective was the “burp gun” that German soldiers on the Eastern Front, often armed with the slower-firing and more temperamental MP-40, would frequently discard their own weapons in favor of captured PPSh-41s.³¹

Subsection 3.3: The Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 Rifle – The Indomitable Workhorse

While the T-34 and PPSh-41 were new designs born of the war, the standard rifle of the Red Army was a relic from the Tsarist era: the Mosin-Nagant M1891/30. First adopted in 1891, the rifle was retained in service for the simple reason that it embodied the core Soviet virtues: it was rugged, chambered for a powerful cartridge (7.62x54mmR), and, most importantly, the industrial infrastructure for its mass production already existed.³⁴

The Mosin-Nagant’s design is fundamentally simple. It features a bolt with a multi-piece body and a detachable bolt head, which simplifies manufacturing and repair compared to the one-piece bolts of rifles like the German Mauser 98k.¹⁸ The action is robust and can function despite significant abuse and neglect, a crucial attribute for a conscript army.

Much of the Mosin’s reputation for being crude and having a “sticky” action stems directly from wartime production expediency. Before the German invasion, rifles produced at the Tula and Izhevsk arsenals were of a decent, if not exceptional, quality. After 1941, however, with production quotas soaring and skilled labor scarce, all non-essential finishing and polishing steps were eliminated. The machining on rifles from 1942 and 1943 is visibly rough, with tool marks and sharp edges being common.⁵⁷ The priority was not finesse but function. If the rifle could safely chamber, fire, and extract a cartridge, it was deemed fit for service and shipped to the front. While a finely-tuned Finnish M39 Mosin might be a superior rifle in every measurable way, the roughly-finished Soviet M91/30 that was available in the millions was the weapon that won the war.

Metric	Soviet T-34/76 (Model 1942)	German Panzer IV Ausf. H	US M4A2 Sherman
Primary Design Driver	Mass Production & Battlefield Sufficiency	Technical Balance & Incremental Upgrades	Logistical Simplicity & Reliability
Manufacturing Method	Stamping, Casting, Rough Welding	Machining, High-Quality Welds	Mass Assembly Line, Casting
Armor Philosophy	Sloped, Uniform Thickness	Flat, Appliqué Plates	Cast/Rolled, Crew Survivability Focus
Engine Type	V-2 Diesel	Maybach Gasoline	GM Twin Diesel or other variants
Suspension Type	Christie	Leaf Spring Bogie	Vertical Volute Spring (VVSS)
Crew Ergonomics	Poor (2-man turret, cramped)	Good (3-man turret, commander’s cupola)	Excellent (Spacious, 3-man turret)
Field Maintenance	Simple Engine, Unreliable Transmission	Over-engineered, often required depot repair	Excellent, Modular, Easy to Service

This comparative analysis highlights how national doctrines and industrial capabilities directly shaped engineering outcomes. The T-34 was a product of a system that prioritized quantity and a “good enough” solution to meet the demands of a war of attrition. The Panzer IV reflects a culture that valued technical refinement and incremental improvement. The Sherman was the product of an industrial powerhouse that prized mechanical reliability and logistical ease above all else, creating a tank that was easy to mass-produce and, crucially, easy to keep running in the field.

Section 4: The Cold War Apex: Perfecting the Philosophy

The end of the Great Patriotic War did not mark the end of the Soviet design philosophy; it cemented it. The principles of reliability, simplicity, and mass production, proven in the fires of the Eastern Front, became the unquestioned dogma of the Soviet military-industrial complex for the next four decades. During the Cold War, this philosophy was refined, perfected, and embodied in a new generation of weapons that would come to dominate battlefields across the globe.

Subsection 4.1: Evolution, Not Revolution – The Principle of Incrementalism

The Soviet system of weapons acquisition, dominated by large, state-run design bureaus (konstruktorskoye byuro), was inherently conservative and favored an evolutionary approach to development.⁵ Rather than pursuing high-risk, “clean sheet” designs that might offer revolutionary leaps in performance but also court failure and production delays, Soviet designers focused on

incrementalism.³⁶ This involved making cumulative product improvements to existing, proven platforms. This strategy had several advantages within the Soviet context: it minimized technical risk, shortened development times, and allowed for long, uninterrupted production runs that maximized economies of scale.³⁵

This evolutionary path is most evident in the lineage of Soviet main battle tanks. The T-54, itself an evolution of the T-44 (which was a successor to the T-34), became the basis for a family of tanks that included the T-55, T-62, and, conceptually, the T-64 and T-72.³⁶ While each new model incorporated significant improvements—such as smoothbore guns, composite armor, and autoloader—they retained the core design characteristics of a low silhouette, a simple and robust layout, and an emphasis on firepower and protection over crew comfort.

A key component of this incremental approach was the extensive use of standardized components. Subsystems, parts, and even entire assemblies were often shared across different weapon systems and succeeding generations.³⁷ This practice simplified the logistical chain, reduced the training burden for maintenance personnel, and streamlined manufacturing by allowing factories to specialize in producing common parts for a wide array of end products. This systemic approach was a direct continuation of the wartime need for a massive, easily supported force capable of high-tempo operations.³⁶

Subsection 4.2: The Avtomat Kalashnikova – Ultimate Expression of Soviet Doctrine

No single weapon better embodies the totality of the Soviet design philosophy than the Avtomat Kalashnikova, or AK-47, and its successor, the AKM. It was not a weapon born in a vacuum but the ultimate synthesis of all the hard-won lessons of the Great Patriotic War. It combined the rugged simplicity of the Mosin-Nagant, the mass-production principles of the PPSh-41, the intermediate cartridge concept of the German StG-44, and the battlefield requirements identified by the Red Army.⁴⁰ It was designed from its inception to be the perfect individual weapon for the Soviet conscript.

Its legendary Надёжность (Nadyozhnost’) is not a myth⁵⁸ but the result of specific, deliberate engineering choices that represent a series of brilliant trade-offs:

Long-Stroke Gas Piston: Unlike the direct impingement system of the American M16 or the short-stroke piston of other designs, the AK uses a massive gas piston that is permanently affixed to the bolt carrier. When the rifle is fired, a large volume of gas is vented into the gas tube, violently driving this heavy assembly rearward. This “over-gassed” system imparts a tremendous amount of energy to the action, allowing it to power through dirt, mud, carbon fouling, and ice that would stop a more finely-tuned rifle.⁴²
Generous Clearances: The internal moving parts of the AK—the bolt carrier, bolt, and receiver rails—are designed with significant “slop” or clearance between them. This intentional looseness provides space for debris to be pushed aside rather than causing the action to bind. This is a direct trade-off against accuracy; the tight tolerances of a rifle like the M16 allow for greater consistency and precision, but make it more susceptible to fouling.⁴²
Tapered Cartridge: The 7.62x39mm M43 cartridge has a pronounced taper to its case. This shape greatly facilitates the processes of feeding from the magazine into the chamber and, even more critically, extraction of the spent casing after firing. This dramatically reduces the likelihood of a stuck case, one of the most common and difficult-to-clear rifle malfunctions.⁴²
Simplicity of Construction and Maintenance: The original AK-47 used a milled steel receiver, which was strong but time-consuming to produce. The modernized AKM, introduced in 1959, switched to a receiver made from a single piece of stamped 1 mm sheet steel, a manufacturing method pioneered with the PPSh-41. This change made the rifle lighter, cheaper, and much faster to produce.⁴¹ The rifle can be field-stripped in under a minute without any tools into a handful of large, robust parts that are easy to clean and difficult to lose.¹²

These characteristics made the AK platform not only the ideal weapon for the Soviet military but also the perfect firearm for export and proliferation. For the armies of developing nations, client states, and insurgent groups, the AK’s ability to function with minimal maintenance and be used effectively by poorly trained fighters made it the most sought-after weapon in the world. Its adherence to the core Soviet principles is the reason it has been produced in excess of 50 million units and remains a defining feature of global conflicts to this day.⁵⁸

The very success of this electro-mechanical design philosophy, however, revealed its limitations as the nature of warfare evolved. The Soviet system, with its aversion to high-risk technological leaps and its focus on refining proven mechanical systems, produced the world’s best industrial-age weaponry. The AK-47, the PKM machine gun, and the T-72 tank are masterpieces of rugged, mechanical engineering.³⁶ In contrast, the American design philosophy, while often resulting in more expensive and initially less reliable systems like the early M16, consistently pushed the boundaries of high technology, particularly in the fields of electronics, avionics, and sensor technology.³⁶

As the Cold War progressed, the battlefield was increasingly dominated not by raw mechanical function but by information and precision. The ability to see first, shoot first, and hit first became paramount. In this new paradigm, the Soviet system’s relative weakness in microelectronics and advanced computing became a critical vulnerability.⁴⁹ A simple, mechanically reliable T-72 with rudimentary optics was at a profound disadvantage against an American M1 Abrams equipped with advanced thermal sights and a sophisticated fire-control computer that could guarantee a first-round hit at extended ranges. The doctrine that had made the Soviet Union a military superpower in the 1950s and 1960s, based on the reliability of steel and springs, became a constraint in the 1980s as military effectiveness became increasingly dependent on the reliability of silicon chips and software.

Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of a Pragmatic Doctrine

The Soviet doctrine of reliability, and the arsenal it produced, cannot be dismissed as merely “crude.” It was, in fact, a deeply pragmatic and brilliantly executed strategic choice, a holistic system that achieved a near-perfect alignment of military objectives with the unyielding realities of geography, industrial capacity, and human capital. It was a philosophy born not of technological limitation, but of a clear-eyed understanding of the nature of total war. Where German engineering often pursued technical perfection at the cost of producibility and field serviceability, and American design chased technological supremacy that sometimes outpaced reliability, the Soviet Union institutionalized a doctrine of sufficiency. It sought not the best possible weapon, but the best possible outcome for the war as a whole.

This philosophy recognized that in a conflict of attrition on the scale of the Eastern Front, the decisive factor is not the individual quality of a single tank or rifle, but the relentless, overwhelming pressure that can be exerted by an endless supply of equipment that is “good enough.” The T-34, the PPSh-41, and the AK-47 are not simply pieces of military hardware; they are artifacts of this unique engineering and strategic culture. They stand as testaments in steel to the idea that in the brutal calculus of modern warfare, the simple, robust weapon that can be placed in the hands of millions will ultimately triumph over the complex, perfect weapon that exists only in the thousands. The enduring legacy of Надёжность (Nadyozhnost’) is written across the battlefields of the last eighty years, a powerful reminder that the most reliable weapon is the one that is there when you need it.

Works cited

The Soviet Union’s Philosophy Of Weapons Design – Quintus Curtius, accessed July 28, 2025, https://qcurtius.com/2016/09/15/the-soviet-unions-philosophy-of-weapons-design/
THE NATURE OF SOVIET MILITARY DOCTRINE (SOV 89-10037CX) – CIA, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000499601.pdf
Seven Principles of Soviet Tactical Doctrine – Marine Corps …, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/seven-principles-of-soviet-tactical-doctrine/
List of Soviet Union military equipment of World War II – Wikipedia, accessed July 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_Union_military_equipment_of_World_War_II
THE SOVIET WEAPONS INDUSTRY: AN OVERVIEW – CIA, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP89T01363R000200310005-3.pdf
Soviet Armed Forces – Wikipedia, accessed July 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Armed_Forces
MILITARY TRAINING IN THE SOVIET ARMY – CIA, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00926A003100060003-0.pdf
The Red Road to Victory: Soviet Combat Training 1917-1945 – UWSpace – University of Waterloo, accessed July 28, 2025, https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstreams/cc998a45-ad55-4a6a-bf2c-3863535ff50d/download
How well trained were Soviet ground units during the Cold War? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/102kksx/how_well_trained_were_soviet_ground_units_during/
What was military training like for post WW2 soviet soldiers? And were segments that radically differed from or were close to the training regimes of US soldiers of the same period? – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/54vujr/what_was_military_training_like_for_post_ww2/
Did the Soviets excel in one area of weaponry during World War II?, accessed July 28, 2025, https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/27416/did-the-soviets-excel-in-one-area-of-weaponry-during-world-war-ii
M16 vs. AK-47: Which one is actually better? – Combat Operators, accessed July 28, 2025, https://combatoperators.com/comparison/m16-vs-ak-47/
I heard somewhere that Nazi guns broke due to the cold in Russia. Is that true? Also, did Russian guns break too, or did they have some special alloy or something to prevent it? – Quora, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.quora.com/I-heard-somewhere-that-Nazi-guns-broke-due-to-the-cold-in-Russia-Is-that-true-Also-did-Russian-guns-break-too-or-did-they-have-some-special-alloy-or-something-to-prevent-it
Russian Winter – Wikipedia, accessed July 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Winter
Assembly line of T-34 tanks, 1942. American style mass production was a significant advantage over Germany’s factories, which relied on skilled craftsmen and multipurpose tools rather than assembly line specialization : r/TankPorn – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/m1rg22/assembly_line_of_t34_tanks_1942_american_style/
A Germany-Soviet Military-Economic Comparison – Feldgrau, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.feldgrau.com/ww2-germany-soviet-military-economic-comparison/
Why was the AK-47 seen as immediately superior to the SKS? – Quora, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-AK-47-seen-as-immediately-superior-to-the-SKS
History of the Mosin Nagant Rifle – Wideners Shooting, Hunting & Gun Blog, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.wideners.com/blog/mosin-nagant-history/
The Soviet Tank That Changed the World – Popular Mechanics, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a32439030/t-34-soviet-tank-history/
The Tiger I is an all-round better tank than the T-34 of any variant. Change my fucking mind., accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/11lj247/the_tiger_i_is_an_allround_better_tank_than_the/
Why the T-34 Outperformed the Tiger Tank: WWII’s Ultimate Showdown Explained #military, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBZMzj_HRDg
Building the Tiger Tank – The Tank Museum, accessed July 28, 2025, https://tankmuseum.org/article/building-a-tiger-tank/
The T-34 Tank: A Soviet “Tractor” That Reached Berlin – Culture Frontier, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.culturefrontier.com/t-34-tank/
The T-34 Tank: The Story of Soviet Russia’s Rugged Armored Vehicle, accessed July 28, 2025, https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-t-34-tank-the-story-of-soviet-russias-rugged-armored-vehicle/
T-34 – Wikipedia, accessed July 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
T-34 tank – Russia in Global Perspective, accessed July 28, 2025, https://russiaglobal.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/exhibits/show/objects/politics/t34
T-34 Medium Tank – Science | HowStuffWorks, accessed July 28, 2025, https://science.howstuffworks.com/t-34-medium-tank.htm
Which Was Better: The Sherman Tank or Russia’s T-34? – The National Interest, accessed July 28, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/which-was-better-sherman-tank-or-russias-t-34-173354
9 Reasons Why Some Think the T-34 was a Poor Tank, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.tankroar.com/2025/03/27/t-34/
T34 vs. Sherman : r/TankPorn – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/12fqvdw/t34_vs_sherman/
The use of captured soviet/allied weaponry by Wehrmacht forces. : r/ww2 – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ww2/comments/1fmtklv/the_use_of_captured_sovietallied_weaponry_by/
Russian vs German Infantry Weapons | WWII Forums, accessed July 28, 2025, http://ww2f.com/threads/russian-vs-german-infantry-weapons.13388/
PPSh-41, Thompson M1A1, or MP-40? | Page 7 | WWII Forums, accessed July 28, 2025, http://ww2f.com/threads/ppsh-41-thompson-m1a1-or-mp-40.10054/page-7
Soviet Small Arms – Fire and Ice: History, accessed July 28, 2025, https://media.wfyi.org/fireandice/history/weaponry_soviet_sa.htm
How did Soviet weapons become so ubiquitous? : r/AskHistorians – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hdaskn/how_did_soviet_weapons_become_so_ubiquitous/
Soviet weapons development, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/04597237608460380
The process of Soviet weapons design | RAND, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P6137.html
What military equipment did the Soviets have that was superior to it’s NATO counterpart?, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/a71emp/what_military_equipment_did_the_soviets_have_that/
The Process of Soviet Weapons Design – DTIC, accessed July 28, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA140629.pdf
Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 – Wikipedia, accessed July 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16
AK-47 | Definition, History, Operation, & Facts | Britannica, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/technology/AK-47
AK-47 – Wikipedia, accessed July 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
Soviet vs Western Small Arms : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1ckd0sm/soviet_vs_western_small_arms/
How AK-47 Guns Work – Kalashnikov Weaponry Timeline – Popular Mechanics, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a6301/anatomy-of-an-ak-47/
Best Practice is a Pipe Dream: The AK47 vs M16 debate and development practice, accessed July 28, 2025, https://bsc.hks.harvard.edu/2017/01/09/best-practice-is-a-pipe-dream-the-ak47-vs-m16-debate-and-development-practice/
Books on Soviet weapon design? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/yfi8l9/books_on_soviet_weapon_design/
Comparisons of Soviet and U.S. Technology – RAND Corporation, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R827.pdf
A COMPARISON OF SOVIET AND US DEFENSE ACTIVITIES, 1973-87 – CIA, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000969816.pdf
By the late Cold War, how efficient was Soviet arms production when it came to the manufacturing process? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/16zb1va/by_the_late_cold_war_how_efficient_was_soviet/
Soviet Vulnerabilities | Air & Space Forces Magazine, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0981soviet/
Военная доктрина – Википедия, accessed July 28, 2025, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0
What were the methods used to combat rasputitsa or mud season on the WW2 eastern front for both German and Soviet forces respectively? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/xj88zd/what_were_the_methods_used_to_combat_rasputitsa/
Russia revives Soviet-era lab to test weapons in Arctic climate: All you need to know, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/russia-revives-soviet-era-lab-to-test-weapons-in-arctic-climate-all-you-need-to-know/story-IQgpneN54wChzvxqcgNeXJ.html
PPSh-41, Soviet’s first mass production weapon – LAI Publications, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.laipublications.com/en/ppsh-41-soviets-first-mass-production-weapon/
T-34: Development History – THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD, accessed July 28, 2025, https://battlefield.ru/content/view/81/43/lang,en/
PPSh-41 – Wikipedia, accessed July 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41
Once again I’m asking for your help, I decided on Mosin, but which one? : r/MosinNagant – Reddit, accessed July 28, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MosinNagant/comments/xtu6x7/once_again_im_asking_for_your_help_i_decided_on/
Калашников. Просто о сложном – ФОНД РУССКИЙ МИР, accessed July 28, 2025, https://russkiymir.ru/publications/147926/

AK Analytics, Analytics and Reports, Russia and also USSR

The Engineering History of the Not So Lowly AK-47 Rivet

July 4, 2025 RoninsGrips

I’ve been involved with AK rifle building since 2006 and there’s something we take for granted – how rivets are used to secure the forged trunnions, and trigger guards to the sheet metal receiver. Not to mention the center support and side mount scope rail. Some have asked why rivets were even used thinking they were some low-end choice. The truth is quite different. Let’s move ahead and take a deeper focused look at the engineering behind the use of the rivet in the AKM rifle – it wasn’t a lowly choice by any means.

Section 1: Introduction to the AKM Stamped Receiver and Rivet-Based Assembly

The design of the 7.62mm AKM represents a pivotal moment in 20th-century small arms manufacturing. Its departure from the milled-receiver construction of its predecessor, the AK-47, in favor of a stamped-steel receiver assembly, necessitated a comprehensive and robust method for joining dissimilar components under significant operational stress. This report provides a detailed engineering analysis of the riveting system employed in the AKM, examining the materials, dimensions, geometry, and underlying mechanical principles that make it a successful and enduring design.

1.1 The Evolution from Milled to Stamped: Engineering and Production Imperatives

The original AK-47, while exceptionally reliable, was built upon a receiver machined from a solid forging of steel. This process was labor-intensive, time-consuming, and resulted in significant material waste. The primary engineering driver for the development of the AKM, introduced in 1959, was the optimization for mass production.¹ Soviet engineers sought to reduce manufacturing complexity, cost, and the overall weight of the rifle without compromising the platform’s legendary reliability.²

The solution was a paradigm shift from a milled receiver to one formed from a single 1.0 mm thick sheet of steel.¹ This change dramatically reduced machine time and cost, allowing for faster production rates to meet the vast needs of the Soviet military and its allies. However, this created a new engineering challenge: a thin, U-shaped stamped steel shell lacks the inherent strength and rigidity to contain the forces of a firing 7.62x39mm cartridge and guide the bolt carrier group with the necessary precision.⁴ The AKM’s riveting system is the critical design element that solves this problem. The following table summarizes the four AK-47 types:

Type Designation	Weapon Model	Receiver Construction	Description
Type 1	Early AK-47 (1948–51)	Stamped	First design; lightweight stamped sheet metal with riveted trunnions. Abandoned due to reliability and tooling issues.
Type 2	AK-47 (1952–53)	Milled	First successful milled version; added a rear socket for the stock and heavier construction.
Type 3	AK-47 (1954–59)	Milled	Refined milled design with lighter weight and simplified manufacturing over Type 2. Most common milled AK-47.
Type 4	AKM (from 1959 onward)	Stamped	Standardized modern AKM receiver; made from stamped sheet metal with riveted trunnions, very lightweight and economical.

1.2 The Functional Role of Trunnions and Rivets in the AKM Design

The AKM design cleverly separates the functions of pressure containment and component housing. The immense stress of firing is handled by two key high-strength components: the front and rear trunnions.⁶

The Front Trunnion: This is a precisely machined block of steel that serves as the heart of the rifle. It holds the barrel, provides the locking recesses for the bolt’s rotating lugs, and contains the peak chamber pressure upon firing. It absorbs the primary rearward thrust of the cartridge case.⁵
The Rear Trunnion: This machined steel block provides the mounting point for the buttstock and serves as the rear stop for the recoiling bolt carrier group, absorbing its kinetic energy at the end of each cycle.¹

The thin stamped receiver acts as a chassis, holding these trunnions and the fire control group in their correct spatial relationship. The rivets are the non-detachable fasteners that permanently join the high-strength trunnions to the receiver shell, transferring the operational loads and creating a unified, rigid structure from otherwise disparate parts.¹ Alternative methods like screwing are unsuitable due to the risk of loosening under intense vibration, while welding could warp the thin receiver and create brittle heat-affected zones.⁷ Riveting provides a permanent, vibration-resistant, and mechanically sound solution.

1.3 System Overview: Mapping the Primary Rivet Groups

The rivet pattern on an AKM is not arbitrary; it is a carefully laid out system designed to secure components and reinforce the receiver. The primary rivet groups, which will be analyzed in detail in subsequent sections, are as follows ⁸:

Front Trunnion Rivets: A group of six rivets securing the front trunnion to the forward section of the receiver.
Rear Trunnion Rivets: Two long rivets (for a standard fixed stock) that pass through the receiver and the rear trunnion block.
Trigger Guard Rivets: A group of five rivets that attach the trigger guard assembly to the bottom of the receiver.
Center Support Rivet: A single rivet and internal sleeve located midway down the receiver that prevents the receiver walls and guide rails from flexing.

The precise placement of these rivets is critical to the firearm’s function and is standardized across Warsaw Pact production, as can be seen in various build templates and diagrams.¹⁰

Top: AKMS (older-style wood handguard typical of AK-47 fitted) with type IV receiver; bottom: AK-47 with type II receiver. Image Source: Wikimedia.

Section 2: A Typology of AKM Rivets: Form, Dimensions, and Location

The rivet set used in an AKM is not a homogenous collection of fasteners. It is a specific kit of components where the geometry and dimensions of each rivet type are engineered for its designated location and mechanical function.

2.1 Rivet Geometry: A Detailed Taxonomy

The rivets used in a standard AKM can be classified into several distinct geometric types, each with a specific purpose.

2.1.1 The Swell Neck Rivet

This is the most specialized and structurally critical rivet in the AKM design. Its geometry features a standard domed head, a shank of a specific diameter, and a distinctive conical flare, or “swell,” located directly beneath the head.⁹ This swell is designed to fit into a corresponding dimpled (countersunk) hole in the receiver sheet. This interface creates a mechanical interlock that provides superior resistance to shear forces, a concept that will be analyzed in detail in Section 4. These are used in the highest-stress locations, such as the trunnion attachments.⁸

2.1.2 The Domed (Universal) Head Rivet

This is a standard solid rivet with a semi-spherical head, often referred to as a universal or round head type.¹⁵ These are used in locations where the specialized shear-resisting properties of the swell neck are not required, but a secure clamping force is still necessary, such as the upper front trunnion holes and parts of the trigger guard assembly.⁹

2.1.3 The Flat Head Rivet

The center support rivet is unique in that it features a very low-profile, flat manufactured head.⁸ This is a design constraint dictated by clearance requirements. The bolt carrier group reciprocates along guide rails inside the receiver, and a standard domed rivet head in this location would interfere with its movement. The flat head ensures a smooth, unobstructed path for the carrier.¹⁸

2.2 Rivet Specifications by Location

The following table synthesizes data from military specifications, gunsmithing resources, and commercial rivet sets to provide a comprehensive reference for the dimensions and types of rivets used in a standard fixed-stock AKM. All imperial measurements have been converted to metric for engineering consistency.

Table 2.1: AKM Rivet Dimensional and Type Specification

Rivet Location	Quantity	Rivet Type/Shape	Shank Ø (mm)	Shank Length (mm)	Factory Head Ø (mm)	Factory Head Height (mm)	Required Receiver Hole Ø (mm)
Front Trunnion, Lower	2	Swell Neck, Domed Head	4.0	9.5	~7.1	~2.1	4.0
Front Trunnion, Middle	2	Swell Neck, Domed Head	4.0	9.5	~7.1	~2.1	4.0
Front Trunnion, Upper	2	Standard, Domed Head	4.0	9.5	~7.1	~2.1	4.0
Rear Trunnion, Long	2	Swell Neck, Domed Head	4.8	~50.8	~7.4	~2.8	4.8
Trigger Guard, Front	4	Standard, Domed Head	4.0	9.5	~6.9	~2.1	4.0
Trigger Guard, Rear	1	Standard, Domed Head	4.0	7.9	~6.9	~2.1	4.0
Center Support	1	Standard, Flat Head	4.0	Varies	~7.0	Low Profile	4.0

Data compiled and converted from sources.⁹ Dimensions are nominal and may exhibit minor variations based on country of origin and production year. Shank length for the center support rivet varies with the sleeve used. Rear trigger guard rivet length can vary depending on the use of a reinforcement plate.¹⁷

2.3 Analysis of National and Historical Variations

While the core Soviet design established the standard, minor variations in rivet specifications and patterns exist among different national producers of the AKM and its derivatives.

One of the most well-documented distinctions is in the front trunnion rivet pattern. Soviet/Warsaw Pact AKMs (Russian, Polish, Romanian, etc.) feature a parallel vertical alignment of the three rivets on each side of the trunnion. In contrast, many Chinese Type 56 rifles utilize a staggered or triangular rivet pattern for the front trunnion.¹²

Furthermore, small dimensional differences in the rivets themselves have been observed. For example, measurements of demilled kits have shown that Romanian factory-formed rivet heads for the trigger guard average around 6.9 mm – 7.2 mm in diameter, while Chinese examples can be slightly larger, averaging around 7.4 mm in diameter with a greater head height.¹⁵ These differences, while minor, reflect distinct manufacturing practices and tooling but do not alter the fundamental engineering principles of the riveting system.

Section 3: Metallurgy and Material Science of Soviet-Era Rivets

The choice of material for the AKM’s rivets is a critical aspect of its design, reflecting a deliberate balance between manufacturability, strength, and cost. The material must be soft enough to be formed without fracture, yet strong enough in its final state to withstand the violent operational stresses of the firearm.

3.1 Material Composition: Analysis of GOST Standard Low-Carbon Steels

Based on an analysis of Soviet-era general-purpose fastener standards, such as GOST 10299-80, the rivets used in the AKM are made from a low-carbon, unalloyed, quality structural steel.²⁰ These steels are not high-performance alloys but are cost-effective, readily available, and possess the specific mechanical properties required for cold-forming applications. The two most probable grades are

Сталь 10 (Steel 10) and Сталь 20 (Steel 20).²⁰ The number in the designation indicates the average carbon content in hundredths of a percent (i.e., 0.10% for Steel 10, 0.20% for Steel 20).²²

Table 3.1: Nominal Chemical Composition of Soviet Rivet Steels (GOST 1050)

Element	Symbol	Steel 10 (% Content)	Steel 20 (% Content)
Carbon	C	0.07 – 0.14	0.17 – 0.24
Manganese	Mn	0.35 – 0.65	0.35 – 0.65
Silicon	Si	0.17 – 0.37	0.17 – 0.37
Phosphorus	P	≤ 0.035	≤ 0.035
Sulfur	S	≤ 0.040	≤ 0.040
Chromium	Cr	≤ 0.15	≤ 0.25
Nickel	Ni	≤ 0.25	≤ 0.30
Copper	Cu	≤ 0.25	≤ 0.30
Iron	Fe	Balance	Balance

Data compiled from sources.²²

3.2 Mechanical Properties: The Engineering Balance of Malleability and Strength

The selection of low-carbon steel is a masterstroke of process-integrated engineering. The material’s properties are ideally suited for both the installation process and the final application.

Malleability and Ductility: The extremely low carbon content makes these steels very soft and ductile in their annealed (as-supplied) state. For Steel 10, the hardness is approximately 143 HB, and for Steel 20, it is around 163 HB.²² This high ductility allows the rivet’s shank to be cold-formed (upset) into the buck-tail or formed head with a press, flowing to fill the hole completely without cracking.²⁵ A harder, higher-carbon steel would be too brittle for this process.
Work Hardening and Final Strength: While the rivets are initially soft, the process of cold-forming induces significant work hardening (also known as strain hardening). As the steel is plastically deformed, dislocations are generated and rearranged within its crystal structure, which impedes further deformation. This has the effect of increasing the material’s tensile strength and hardness in its final, installed state. The rivet becomes substantially stronger than it was before installation. This elegant mechanism means that the assembly process itself is the final step in achieving the required mechanical properties, eliminating the need for a separate, costly heat treatment cycle for the millions of rivets produced.

3.3 Heat Treatment and Surface Finishing

It is critical to distinguish between the treatment of the rivets and the treatment of the receiver. The rivets themselves are not heat-treated after installation.²⁷ Their final strength is a product of material selection and work hardening.

In contrast, the 1.0 mm stamped receiver is selectively heat-treated. Specifically, the areas around the fire control group (hammer and trigger) pin holes and the tip of the integral ejector are hardened to prevent wear and elongation under repeated stress.⁴ A common specification for this spot-hardening is a Rockwell C hardness of 38-40.¹³ Attempting to use a non-heat-treated receiver will result in rapid failure, as the pin holes will stretch and deform, leading to malfunction.¹³

The standard finish applied to military-issue rivets is a black oxide coating.⁹ This is a conversion coating that provides mild corrosion resistance and a durable, non-reflective black finish that matches the rest of the firearm.

Section 4: Engineering Rationale and Stress Distribution Analysis

The AKM’s riveting system is more than a simple collection of fasteners; it is an integrated system designed to manage and distribute the complex forces generated during the firing cycle. Understanding this system requires analyzing the stresses on the primary components and the specific design features created to handle them.

4.1 The Trunnions as Primary Load-Bearing Structures

As established, the trunnions are the true load-bearing elements of the AKM.

Front Trunnion Stress: The front trunnion bears the highest peak stress in the system. When a cartridge is fired, the expanding gases exert a force on the bolt face, which is transmitted directly to the locking lugs on the front trunnion. This force is on the order of thousands of pounds, corresponding to chamber pressures that can reach approximately 45,000 psi for the 7.62x39mm cartridge.⁵ The integrity of the trunnion’s locking lugs is paramount. This is why properly forged and heat-treated trunnions are essential; failures of substandard cast trunnions often manifest as cracks or complete shearing of the locking lugs.⁵
Rear Trunnion Stress: The rear trunnion experiences a different type of load: a high-energy impact. At the end of its rearward travel, the entire mass of the bolt carrier group (approximately 500 grams) slams into the front face of the rear trunnion. While the peak force is lower than the chamber pressure, it is a significant, repetitive shock load that must be absorbed and transferred into the receiver shell without causing deformation or failure.⁷ This repeated impact is why the rear trunnion rivets are often described as taking the most “abuse” in the system.⁷

4.2 Analysis of Forces: Shear Stress on Trunnion Rivets

The primary force that the trunnion rivets must resist is shear. The rearward thrust on the front trunnion and the impact on the rear trunnion create forces that try to slide the trunnions relative to the receiver skin. The rivets act as pins, resisting this shearing motion. The load is distributed among the rivets in a group, with each rivet carrying a fraction of the total shear force.

4.3 The Swell Neck/Dimple Interface: A Design Solution for Maximizing Shear Resistance

The most ingenious feature of the AKM’s riveting system is the use of swell neck rivets in conjunction with dimpled receiver holes. This is a specific design solution to the problem of transferring high shear loads into a thin (1.0 mm) sheet of metal.

In a standard rivet joint, the shear load is borne by the bearing surface of the hole against the rivet shank. In a 1.0 mm receiver, this bearing area is minuscule, making the hole highly susceptible to elongation or “egging” under load, which would lead to a loose trunnion and catastrophic failure.

The swell neck/dimple system fundamentally changes this dynamic. The process involves using a specialized die to press a conical countersink, or “dimple,” into the receiver hole.⁸ The front or rear trunnion must be in place behind the receiver to support the sheet during this process.⁸ When the swell neck rivet is installed, its conical swell nests perfectly into this dimple.¹³

The basic formula for shear stress (τ) is τ = F/A, where F is the applied force and A is the area over which the force is acting. This formula calculates the average shear stress across the area.

Explanation:

Shear Stress (τ): It’s a measure of the force acting parallel to the surface area of a material, causing it to deform or potentially fail by sliding or shearing.
Force (F): This is the component of the force that is parallel to the surface area.
Area (A): This is the cross-sectional area of the material that the force is acting upon. It’s the area of the surface where the force is applied, not the total surface area of the object.

So, as the area increases, the sheer stress decreases all things being equal.

This creates a mechanical interlock. The shear load is no longer concentrated on the thin edge of the hole. Instead, it is distributed across the entire conical surface area of the dimple. This vastly increases the bearing surface, dramatically reduces the bearing stress on the receiver material, and effectively locks the trunnion and receiver together, preventing any relative movement.⁶ Gunsmithing guides explicitly warn against trying to achieve a flush fit by removing material from the receiver instead of dimpling; doing so defeats the entire purpose of the design, leaving only the rivet’s core to resist shear and guaranteeing eventual failure.⁶ This feature is the key to making a thin stamped receiver perform as if it were much thicker and stronger at these critical junctions.

4.4 The Role of the Center Support and Trigger Guard Rivets in Receiver Rigidity

While the trunnion rivets handle the primary firing loads, the other rivet groups serve a crucial structural reinforcement role, stiffening the inherently flexible U-shaped receiver.

Center Support: The center support consists of a rivet passing through a steel sleeve that bridges the two sides of the receiver.⁸ This assembly acts as a critical cross-member. It prevents the long, unsupported upper guide rails from flexing inward under the lateral forces exerted by the reciprocating bolt carrier, ensuring smooth and reliable cycling. It also prevents the receiver walls themselves from bowing or pinching.³³
Trigger Guard Assembly: The trigger guard is not merely a safety feature. When its five rivets are properly installed, the entire stamped steel trigger guard assembly acts as a structural floor plate for the receiver.³⁴ This significantly increases the torsional and latitudinal rigidity of the large magazine well opening, preventing the “U” from spreading or twisting under load.

Together, these rivet groups transform the flexible stamped receiver shell into a strong, cohesive chassis capable of withstanding the rigors of military service.

Section 5: The Riveting Process: A Technical Guide to Proper Formation

Achieving the designed strength of the AKM’s riveted joints is entirely dependent on the correct installation process. This is a precision manufacturing operation that requires specialized tooling and meticulous adherence to procedure. Using improper methods, such as a hammer and a simple punch, will result in substandard joints that compromise the safety and reliability of the firearm.

5.1 Essential Tooling: Jigs, Presses, and Forming Dies

Modern, correct riveting practice relies on a set of specialized tools to ensure control and repeatability.

Hydraulic Press: A shop press, typically with a capacity of 12 tons or more, provides the slow, controlled, and immense force needed to properly form the rivets without impact shock.¹³
Riveting Jig: A purpose-built jig, such as those made by AK-Builder or Toth Tool, is essential. These jigs securely hold the receiver and trunnion assembly, ensuring it is square to the press ram. They have recesses to support the manufactured head of the rivet, preventing it from being flattened, and they align the forming tool perfectly coaxial with the rivet shank.⁸ Different jigs or configurations are used for short trunnion rivets, long rear trunnion rivets, and the trigger guard.³³
Forming Dies and Tools: A set of hardened steel forming tools is used to shape the rivet. This includes cupped support dies for the manufactured head and various forming punches to create a correctly shaped, domed buck-tail on the other end.¹⁶

5.2 Receiver and Component Preparation

Proper preparation of the components is as important as the riveting itself.

Hole Location and Drilling: Rivet holes must be precisely located on the receiver blank. This is typically done using a plastic layout guide and a transfer punch to mark the hole centers.¹⁰ The holes are then drilled to the correct diameter (e.g., 4.0 mm for a 4.0 mm rivet) using a drill press and high-quality drill bits.³⁷ An undersized hole will prevent the rivet from seating, while an oversized hole will result in a weak joint.
Deburring: After drilling, all holes must be carefully deburred on both sides. Any burrs or sharp edges will prevent the rivet from sitting flush against the receiver and trunnion, creating gaps that compromise the joint’s integrity.⁶
Dimpling: For all swell neck rivet locations, the receiver holes must be dimpled. This is done using a specialized dimple die in the hydraulic press, with the trunnion installed in the receiver to provide backing support. This forms the conical seat that the rivet’s swell neck will engage.⁸

5.3 Step-by-Step Installation Protocol

The general sequence for riveting an AKM receiver is as follows, using the appropriate jigs and press tools for each step ⁸:

Trigger Guard Riveting: The trigger guard assembly is typically installed first, often with a dedicated jig. The four front rivets and the single rear rivet are pressed to secure the guard and magazine catch assembly.¹³
Front Trunnion Riveting: The front trunnion is placed in the receiver, and the six short rivets are installed. Care must be taken to use swell neck rivets in the four lower and middle holes (which should be dimpled) and standard domed rivets in the two upper holes.⁸
Rear Trunnion Riveting: The rear trunnion is installed using the two long rivets. This requires a specialized long-rivet jig to support the receiver and apply force linearly down the long shank of the rivet.⁸
Center Support Installation: The center support sleeve is inserted, and the special flat-headed rivet is pressed into place, again using the long-rivet tool.⁸

5.4 Inspection and Verification of a Correctly Formed Rivet

A properly formed rivet must meet specific visual and mechanical criteria.

Visual Inspection: The manufactured head must be perfectly flush against the receiver surface with no visible gaps. A common field test is to hold the receiver up to a bright light source to check for light passing under the rivet head.³⁹ The formed head (the buck-tail) must be symmetrical, well-rounded with a dome shape similar to the manufactured head, and centered on the rivet’s shank. It should not be flattened, cracked, or off-center.⁴⁰
Mechanical Integrity: The finished rivet must be completely tight. There should be absolutely no detectable movement between the trunnion and the receiver when force is applied. The entire assembly should feel and behave as a single, monolithic component. A loose rivet is a failed rivet and must be drilled out and replaced.

This is a Romanian Pistol Mitralieră model 1963/1965 (abbreviated PM md. 63 or simply md. 63) and is the Patriotic Guard or ‘Gardă’ version readily identifiable by the “G” on the rear sight block. Image source: Author.

Section 6: Conclusion: The Engineering Elegance of the AKM Riveting System

6.1 Synthesis of Findings: A Robust System for a Stamped Platform

The comprehensive analysis of the AKM’s riveting system reveals a design that is far more sophisticated than its rugged appearance suggests. The transition from the milled AK-47 to the stamped AKM was a manufacturing revolution, and the riveting system is the lynchpin of its success. The key findings of this report can be synthesized as follows:

A Purpose-Engineered System: The AKM’s riveting system is a holistic solution to the engineering challenges posed by a thin, stamped-steel receiver. It successfully mates high-strength, load-bearing trunnions to a lightweight chassis, creating a firearm that is both durable and easy to mass-produce.
Specialized Components: The system does not rely on generic fasteners. It employs a heterogeneous set of rivets, each with a specific geometry (swell neck, domed head, flat head) and dimension precisely tailored to the mechanical requirements and spatial constraints of its location.
Optimized Material Science: The choice of low-carbon steel (such as Soviet Steel 10 or 20) is a deliberate act of engineering efficiency. The material’s initial ductility facilitates easy cold-forming, while the installation process itself induces work-hardening, providing the final required strength without the need for a separate heat-treatment process.
Advanced Structural Mechanics: The strength of the system is derived not merely from the clamping force of the rivets but from advanced mechanical principles. The swell neck/dimple interface is a brilliant solution for managing shear stress, while the center support and trigger guard rivets act as integral structural reinforcements, adding critical rigidity to the receiver.
Process-Dependent Integrity: The design’s success is inextricably linked to the correct installation methodology. Proper riveting is a precision process that requires specialized tooling and meticulous preparation. Deviations from this process directly compromise the mechanical integrity and safety of the firearm.

6.2 Final Assessment

The riveting system of the AKM is a testament to the Soviet design philosophy of elegant simplicity. It achieves maximum functional robustness with a minimum of manufacturing complexity and cost. By understanding the interplay between the stamped receiver, the machined trunnions, and the specialized rivets that join them, one can appreciate the AKM not just as a firearm, but as a masterclass in pragmatic and effective mechanical engineering. It is a system where every component, every dimension, and every step in the assembly process has a clear and logical purpose, resulting in one of the most successful and widely produced firearm designs in history.

Works cited

AKM – Wikipedia, accessed June 20, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM
AK-47 vs AKM Performance: Insights from GunCreed® Experts, accessed June 20, 2025, https://guncreed.com/2025/03/12/how-does-the-ak47-compare-to-the-akm-in-terms-of-performance/
AR & AK – Night Galaxy, accessed June 20, 2025, https://nightgalaxy.com/blog/ar-ak/
How do I heat treat an AK receiver? [Archive] – The Firing Line Forums, accessed June 20, 2025, https://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-325374.html
Ras47 Trunnion failure. : r/ak47 – Reddit, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ak47/comments/abjwaa/ras47_trunnion_failure/
AKM Build Project: From Poland With Love | RECOIL, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.recoilweb.com/preview-build-your-own-akm-rifle-101413.html
New Technique for AK Builds – SKSBOARDS.COM, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=8335.20;wap2
Rivet Tool Instructions – AK-Builder.com, accessed June 20, 2025, https://ak-builder.com/index1.php?dispatch=pages.view&page_id=10
AK-Builder AK Rivet Set, accessed June 20, 2025, https://ak-builder.com/index1.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=29975
Trigger Guard Rivet (AKM, AKMS, AK-74) Layout Guide – Childers Guns, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.childersguns.com/Trigger-Guard-Rivet-Layout-Guide
FCG (AK, AKM, AK74) Layout Guide – Childers Guns, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.childersguns.com/FCG-Layout-Guide-1
Вкладыш тульских АКМ 65-г. : История оружия – Guns.ru, accessed June 20, 2025, https://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/36/2680758.html
AK Krink Build Part 3: Trigger Guard Riveting and Front Trunion Drilling – ITS Tactical, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.itstactical.com/warcom/firearms/ak-krink-build-part-3-trigger-guard-riveting-and-front-trunion-drilling/
AK47 AKM FIXED STOCK RIVET SET – Carolina Shooters Supply, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.carolinashooterssupply.com/AK47-AKM-FIXED-STOCK-RIVET-SET-p/rivets-ak47-fixed.htm
Making Your Own Rivets – The AK Files Forums – Scribd, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/248364164/Making-Your-Own-Rivets-The-AK-Files-Forums
AK-Builder Rivet Tool: MGW, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.midwestgunworks.com/page/mgwi/prod/akb-t5-11
Power Custom Rivet Set AK-47 AKM, PM90 Side Folding Stock, Model 65 – MidwayUSA, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.midwayusa.com/product/100469512
Easy AK47 Build “Homemade”: Center Support long rivet install ~ Step 3 of 6 – YouTube, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSCmhLgB4rE
Centrefire automatic rifle – Kalashnikov ‘AKM SU’ – about 1977 | Collection Object | Royal Armouries, accessed June 20, 2025, https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-275685
Заклепка с полукруглой головкой ГОСТ 10299-80 – купить по выгодным ценам от производителя – Первый завод крепежных изделий, accessed June 20, 2025, https://pzki54.ru/product/zaklepki/zaklepka-s-potaynoy-golovkoy-gost-10299/
Заклепка стальная ГОСТ 10299-80, DIN 660 с полукруглой …, accessed June 20, 2025, https://metizorel.ru/zak10299.html
Сталь 10 (ст10) конструкционная углеродистая качественная, Купить прокат из стали марки ст10 – Металлобаза ‘АКСВИЛ’, accessed June 20, 2025, https://aksvil.by/klientam/materialy-po-prokatu/stal-10.html
расшифровка и характеристики | гост и применение марки стали 20 – ТД «Ареал, accessed June 20, 2025, https://areal-metal.ru/spravka/stal-marki-20
Сталь 20 – применение, состав, характеристики, аналоги, расшифровка, accessed June 20, 2025, https://aksvil.by/klientam/materialy-po-prokatu/stal-20.html
Power Custom AK-47 Gas Piston Rivet – MidwayUSA, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1004693281
7 Key 1020 Steel Properties You Must Know, accessed June 20, 2025, https://jiyuansteel.com/7-key-1020-steel-properties-you-must-know/
Pre-heating rivets?! – Van’s Air Force, accessed June 20, 2025, https://vansairforce.net/threads/pre-heating-rivets.70515/
How do I heat treat an AK receiver? – The Firing Line Forums, accessed June 20, 2025, https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325374
akm rivet set *original polish military imported rivets – Arms of America, accessed June 20, 2025, https://armsofamerica.com/akm-rivet-set-original-polish-military-imported-rivets/
AK cast trunnion fail on RAS47 – Boom! – AK Operators Union, Local 47-74, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.akoperatorsunionlocal4774.com/2015/10/ak-cast-trunnion-fail-on-ras47-boom/
Palmetto AK [Archive] – Michigan Gun Owners Community Forum, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.migunowners.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-464626.html
Rivets – ak builder – Arms of America, accessed June 20, 2025, https://armsofamerica.com/tools-to-build-an-ak/rivets/
Ak-Builder Rivet Tool, accessed June 20, 2025, https://ak-builder.com/index1.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=29972
AK Trigger Guard Rivet Set – AK-Builder.com, accessed June 20, 2025, https://ak-builder.com/index1.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=30650
AK Builder Rivet Tool Instructions | PDF – Scribd, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/531377426/AK-Builder-Rivet-Tool-Instructions
AK47 Kitchen build Rear trunnion rivet installation Tothtool.wmv – YouTube, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2uiGKwnsyI
ak build tools – Arms of America, accessed June 20, 2025, https://armsofamerica.com/shop-by-category/gunsmithing-tools/
Таблица размеров заклепок: диаметры, длины, параметры установки и расчет зазоров, accessed June 20, 2025, https://inner.su/articles/tablitsy-razmerov-zaklepok-i-parametrov-ustanovki/
Things To Look For When Buying A New AK – Thinline Weapons Wiki, accessed June 20, 2025, https://thinlineweapons.com/wiki/index.php/Things_To_Look_For_When_Buying_A_New_AK
Easy AK47 Build “Homemade”: Front trunnion riveting ~ Step 2 of 6 – YouTube, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MegvQzASrr4&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
AK-47 Loose Rivet Rebuild Part 1 – YouTube, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7qKa_yhEtw
Комплект заклепок для боковых планок, Тула – Прицелы ПУ, accessed June 20, 2025, https://puscopes.ru/product/komplekt-zaklepok-dlya-bokovyh-planok-tula/
Марка 10 – ТД «СпецСталь». Свойства, характеристики и применение, accessed June 20, 2025, https://tdspecstal.ru/assortment/spetsialnye-stali-i-splavy/10/
Сталь 10 в России – характеристики, аналоги, свойства, accessed June 20, 2025, https://metatorg.ru/marki-stali-i-splavy/stal_konstruktcionnaya/stal_konstruktsionnaya_uglerodistaya_kachestvennaya/stal_konstruktsionnaya_uglerodistaya_kachestvennaya_10/
Сталь 20: свойства, характеристики, аналоги – Метинвест-СМЦ, accessed June 20, 2025, https://metinvest-smc.com/ru/steel/stal-20/

AISI 1020 Low Carbon/Low Tensile Steel – AZoM, accessed June 20, 2025, https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6114

Czechoslovakia

Video: Birth Of the Alien Tiger Czech Hind Attack Helicopter

February 13, 2020 RoninsGrips

I recently posted a video that shows the amazing paint job the Czechs did to one of their Mi-35 Hind-D attack helicopters. Little did I know that there was a “behind the scenes” short documentary about the decision making that went into that paint job and that they won an award for it.

They had a number of conventional ideas that didn’t really wow anybody until they thought of a guy who specialized in the bio-mechanical look.

They do have some footage of the fellow doing the work. It was he, his brother and a few technicians who spent about 200 hours doing the paint job. I wish they had more footage of it and at a higher resolution.

The Documentary Video

Again, if you haven’t seen it already, check out the other post with a ton of footage of this awesome Hind. I hope you enjoyed these!

Czechoslovakia, Russia and also USSR

Video: The Alien Tiger – The Mi-35/24V of The Czech Air Force

February 10, 2020 RoninsGrips

I’m a huge fan of the Hind family of attack helicopters. This video is of the Czech Air Force’s Mi-35/24V that they painted special for the NATO Tiger Meet exercise. This is one of the most badass paint jobs seen on a Hind. It’s got the H.R. Giger Alien feel for it and the result is just wicked. I had to screen shot a few photos to share but boy, you have to watch the video below.

The Video

Kudos to the team that did the filming as well as the Czech 22nd Helicopter Air Base and the 221st Helicopter Squadron.

What a wicked video! I sure hope you liked it as well.

Please note that all images were extracted from the video and are the property of their respective owner.

Uncategorized

Larry Vickers Shows a Federov, SKS and Pre-Production AK-47

December 16, 2018 RoninsGrips 1 Comment

In 2015, Larry Vickers had a great chance to visit the Central Armed Forces Museum in northern Moscow. While there, he had a chance to visit the museum’s archives and see an original Federov rifle, an early SKS and a preproduction AK-47 that was produced in 1946. He assembled this part of his visit along with a comparison of a German StG 44 and a Type I AK into a video.

The Federov

The Federov Avtomat was arguably the first assault rifle. It was designed in 1913 and produced at the Kovrov Arms Factory from 1913-1925. Roughly 3,200 of these forward thinking rifles were built. Personally, I think the rifle was very novel for its time including the use of the

An overview of the Federov from the video.

Larry steps shows the Federov to viewers and has a lot of great close ups of this rare rifle.

The SKS

The Samozaryadny Karabin sistemy Simonov (SKS) was designed in 1944 and went into production in 1945. Thus, it became known as the “SKS-45” in the USSR and was widely exported. In total, the Soviets produced about 2.7 million SKS carbines first at the Tula Arsenal (1949-1958) and also Izhevsk Arsenal (153 and 1954). The rifle was chambered for the

Larry provides an overview of the SKS carbine

Here, he is holding an early SKS model and gives a quick overview of it.

A Preproduction AK-47

Larry had a chance to review an actual pre-production AK from about 1946 that was used in the Army’s trials of the weapon prior to official adoption in 1947. This is what I especially wanted to see. You see, many people assume the AK-47 was one single assault rifle when, really, it evolved over time. They had the Type I, II, the III/AKM and so forth.

At any rate, Mikhail Kalashnikov and his design team worked on the

Larry shows the Army Trial rifle and the viewer gets to see a number of angles of the rifle.

German StG-44 vs. Type I AK-47

Larry then goes on to argue that the StG-44 greatly influenced Kalashnikov and his design team. Folks, this is a hotly debated topic. As a point of Russian pride, they minimize any thoughts of influence. At this point, it’s really hard to say. If it were me, I’d look at a previous design and get ideas from it to save time, money and reduce the risk of mistakes.

Larry has a German StG-44 on the left and a Type I AK on the right.

The Video

So with no further to do, here’s Larry’s video:

Please note that all images above are extracted from the video and are the copyright of Vickers Tactical.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something.

Military, Miscellaneous

Cool New Soviet KGB Vodka Flasks – Awesome Conversation Starters

June 19, 2018 RoninsGrips

So I was surfing one day and stumbled across these cool souvenir personal liquor flasks from Russia that hark back to the Soviet era. They looked really cool in the photos and were brand new so I figured why not get one and check it out. Thus, out came the credit card and I got one from worldgifts1 on eBay. I should point out that a number of vendors are selling these and they all look the same.

The below are photos of my exact flask. I actually bought two – one for myself and one for my buddy Scott. They really are nicely done – the chrome plate is good and what really caught my eye is the coat of arms – the CCCP is the abbreviation of the Cyrllic words “Союз Советских Социалистических Республик” that translate as the Union of Soviety Socialist Republics. The КГБ is the Cyrllic abbreviation for Комите́т госуда́рственной безопа́сности which translates as the Committee for State Security, which we better know as the KGB.

I bought this strictly as a novelty plus as a place to keep either vodka or, gasp, my beloved tequila. I think I am in big trouble for the tequila comment 🙂 It’s definitely a cool conversation starter and you could put whatever drink you want in there of course.

At any rate, it arrived as you see above and is water tight. I sloshed some soapy water around inside, rinsed it out several times and then let it dry and it was good to go.

In my opinion it is a good deal – sure you can get cheaper generic flasks but they scream “boozer” vs. being a conversation starter. I’d recommend these and they do make flasks with other insignia too – I opted for the KGB one due to growing up during the Cold War and tons of spy movies.

Part I: The American Approach: A Market-Driven Quest for Overmatch

Section 1. Doctrinal and Industrial Philosophy: The Pursuit of the Decisive Edge

Core Philosophy of “Technological Overmatch”

The Post-McNamara Industrial Model

Emphasis on Joint-Service Requirements

Section 2. The Lifecycle Framework: From Capability Gap to Fielded System

Phase 1: Requirements Generation (The JCIDS Process)

Phase 2: Acquisition and Development (The PEO Soldier Model)

Phase 3: Testing, Evaluation, and Refinement

Phase 4: Production and Fielding

Section 3. Case Study: The Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) Program

Section 4. Analysis of the U.S. Model: Strengths and Systemic Hurdles

Pros:

Cons:

Part II: The Russian Approach: State-Directed Evolution of a Legacy

Section 1. Doctrinal and Industrial Philosophy: Reliability, Simplicity, and Mass

Core Philosophy of “Good Enough”

The State-Controlled Industrial Model (OPK)

Centralized, Top-Down Requirements

Section 2. The Lifecycle Framework: The Centrality of Design Bureaus and State Trials

Phase 1: Requirement and Design

Phase 2: Prototyping and Internal Evaluation

Phase 3: State Trials and Formal Adoption

Phase 4: Production and Fielding

Section 3. Case Study: The Ratnik Combat System and the AK-12

Section 4. Analysis of the Russian Model: Strengths and Endemic Weaknesses

Pros:

Cons:

Part III: Comparative Analysis and Future Outlook

Section 1. A Juxtaposition of Lifecycles: Process, Pace, and Priorities

Section 2. The Impact of Modern Warfare: Lessons from Ukraine and Beyond

Section 3. The Future Battlefield: Networked Lethality and Systemic Adaptation

Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

Works cited

Share this:

Like this:

Section 1: The Doctrinal Imperative: The Nature of Soviet Warfare

Subsection 1.1: Военная доктрина (Voyennaya doktrina) – The State’s Theory of War

Subsection 1.2: The Principles of Deep Battle and High-Tempo Operations

Subsection 1.3: The Conscript and the Commissar: The Human Factor

Section 2: The Philosophy Forged in Fire: Lessons of the Great Patriotic War

Subsection 2.1: Надёжность (Nadyozhnost’) – Absolute Reliability as the Paramount Virtue

Subsection 2.2: Простота (Prostota) – Radical Simplicity

Subsection 2.3: Массовое производство (Massovoye proizvodstvo) – The Primacy of Mass

Section 3: Case Studies in WWII Steel: Doctrine Made Manifest

Subsection 3.1: The T-34 Medium Tank – A Revolutionary Compromise

Subsection 3.2: The PPSh-41 Submachine Gun – The People’s “Burp Gun”

Subsection 3.3: The Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 Rifle – The Indomitable Workhorse

Section 4: The Cold War Apex: Perfecting the Philosophy

Subsection 4.1: Evolution, Not Revolution – The Principle of Incrementalism

Subsection 4.2: The Avtomat Kalashnikova – Ultimate Expression of Soviet Doctrine

Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of a Pragmatic Doctrine

Works cited

Share this:

Like this:

Section 1: Introduction to the AKM Stamped Receiver and Rivet-Based Assembly

1.1 The Evolution from Milled to Stamped: Engineering and Production Imperatives

1.2 The Functional Role of Trunnions and Rivets in the AKM Design

1.3 System Overview: Mapping the Primary Rivet Groups

Section 2: A Typology of AKM Rivets: Form, Dimensions, and Location

2.1 Rivet Geometry: A Detailed Taxonomy

2.1.1 The Swell Neck Rivet

2.1.2 The Domed (Universal) Head Rivet

2.1.3 The Flat Head Rivet

2.2 Rivet Specifications by Location

2.3 Analysis of National and Historical Variations

Section 3: Metallurgy and Material Science of Soviet-Era Rivets

3.1 Material Composition: Analysis of GOST Standard Low-Carbon Steels

3.2 Mechanical Properties: The Engineering Balance of Malleability and Strength

3.3 Heat Treatment and Surface Finishing

Section 4: Engineering Rationale and Stress Distribution Analysis

4.1 The Trunnions as Primary Load-Bearing Structures

4.2 Analysis of Forces: Shear Stress on Trunnion Rivets

4.3 The Swell Neck/Dimple Interface: A Design Solution for Maximizing Shear Resistance

4.4 The Role of the Center Support and Trigger Guard Rivets in Receiver Rigidity

Section 5: The Riveting Process: A Technical Guide to Proper Formation

5.1 Essential Tooling: Jigs, Presses, and Forming Dies

5.2 Receiver and Component Preparation

5.3 Step-by-Step Installation Protocol

5.4 Inspection and Verification of a Correctly Formed Rivet