http://www.gandul.info/news/prima-pusca-de...inatate-9501089
Obviously almost all newspapers felt obliged to publish nonsense images (that do not seem to have any connection with the actual weapon!) but the question persists: will it be an original product, as written, or on inspired "Westernized" one, like many modified (upgarded) AKMs, used for instance in Irak or Afghanistan? It remains to be seen...

It is said in another article that is an "original 100%" romanian idea based on ... AKM ))

Basically it is a AK type assault rifle but with the caliber changed to the 5,56mm NATO standard and polymer stock, Picatiny rails maybe etc.

Anyway the AK system is very rugged.

The weapon in the picture is something else

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_Mitral...del_1996_RATMIL

This post has been edited by Hadrian on April 10, 2012 07:55 pm

Could be this one?

http://rumaniamilitary.wordpress.com/2012/...n-sfarsit-poze/

I don't think it is that important really if it is 100 % brand new design or not. What it matters is for it to function properly and to be manufactured in Romania, generating revenue and taxes here.

It is interesting what the people wrote on the forums below those textes.

And no foreign licence to be infringed, I may add.

Gen. Dénes

Indeed Victor, agree with you! But a question arises: if its not a completely new weapon then for what is the need to be adopted? Is the current weapon PA md.1986 not enough for what we face in the theaters of operations where we have troops? I see the need for equipping all existing weapons with day/night sighting systems, other electronic systems but I also see as not necessary to adopt a new weapon right now! Especially if is not a radically changed weapon, a high-tech one! It's just an opinion!
Contras, thanks for the photo! My opinion is that the ref picture in question is that it looks somehow similar to the IMI Galil combined with FN FNC... in any case a design totally unimpressive and a weapon out of actual trends ... hope it's not that!

Having a locally-made weapon means a local/reliable/independent chain of supply and ease of servicing/repair/replacement which are essential in case of conflict. It also means jobs and the money stays in the country.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on April 14, 2012 09:10 pm

like russian truck based on Ford, like the USA original rockets based on german savants...see 21inf...Romania is entering in the game.

Radu,
I understand perfectly the need for local produced arms, from rapid order and delivery posibility when the guns needed most and continuing with jobs and money that remains in the country! Obviously I agree with that, but it does not mean to produce a new weapon that does not bring much (in performance or technology) in addition to the existing weapon, the PA md.1986 cal.5,45mm. also produced in our country!
I belief f.i. that the money spent on this would be more useful in the production or acquisition of other systems, which are much more deficient -f.i. day/night sights for every trooper rifle or something like this. I also understand the need to use the same caliber by the automatic rifles as NATO troopers did but but I don't think the situation or ammunition is so problematic to impose the adoption of a new weapon! Its only an opinion anyway, the decision is not ours!

No shame, no scandal. The AK47 was strongly influenced by the Stg44. The American M60 is stronly influenced by the MG42. The principle is the same, only the manufacturing differed. In fact, there are only a handful of operating principles for guns, and none are straying too far from Hiram Maxim's idea. Most "innovations" in the recent years have concentrated on aesthetics, materials, safety and ergonomics. What made the AKM so good and so long-lived was its reliability, simplicity and ease of construction. It is not a bad start.
You MUST remember that a gun is a very basic weapon - the main "job" is done by the explosion inside the cartridge that propels the round down the barrel. The job of the "gun" is simply to aim the round in the right direction and replenish the cartridges. In other words: shoot, reload, repeat cycle. Aim better, reload faster, and do all that repeatedly without fail. Those first two parameters, aiming and reloading, have been perfected to the highest point possible. So, what manufacturers are looking for now is reliability. They all strive to simplify the mechanism, use fewer moving parts and make the lot cheaper. It is highly unlikely that the Romanian engineers discovered a new way to fire/reload a gun, so it stands to reason that they used what they knew when they designed this gun. They did not invent "mersul pe jos", they just designed new shoes.
Radu

Obviously I agree with you, but probably in the subconscious of some decision makers the aesthetics of a weapon seem to matter, at least sometimes... F.I. the russians didn't adopt a highly valued weapon at a time Nikonov AN-94, maybe also because it was very different from what they know and used so far the AK-47/M/-74 etc., but are ready to adopt the old-new Kalashnikov AK-12, which is not very different from the old AK-series. The Nikonov was appreciated but... it looks ugly, I remember reading a declaration of former Defence Minister Pavel Grachev... maybe the reasons were different but... it's interesting his oppinion!

The problem with the PA model 1986 is the calibre. Romania has been part of NATO for a while now and it is only normal to start using the standard NATO calibre of 5.56 mm. I suspect it eases supply and logistics for troops operating within integrated multi-national brigades overseas.

Price always goes before looks or even reliability when it comes to government purchases.
Think of the Chauchat. It was cheap, so it was ordered in massive amounts, but the performance was abysmal. Even when told that it was useless, the governments kept purchasing it because it was cheap.
Think of the FP-45 pistol. Worst idea of all times. Cheap as chips. One million made.
Radu