Designed during the height of the Cold War by the Soviet military, the APS (special underwater assault rifle)was intended for use by commie spetznaz and combat diver teams to stealthily kill Yankee bastards and their capitalist stooges.

As first brought to us by The Firearms Blog, the APS shoots 5.6mm darts using a standard gunpowder charge in a sealed cartridge. The weapon can be fired above and below water, but specs show significant degrading of the weapon when not fired submerged.

The magazine holds 26 rounds and the whole getup weighs 7.5 pounds loaded.

{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }

Bob June 28, 2010 at 2:18 pm

The Ruski's always have been way ahead of us when it comes to smallarms. Their weapons are popular and they work, always. Inexpensive to produce also.

Reply

Sev June 28, 2010 at 4:51 pm

They're popular because they're cheap. Thats it. Russia has no problem about giving away weapons to our enemies. They're not ahead. And we have underwater weapons too, which the author of this article failed to mention.

Reply

Jo6pack June 28, 2010 at 5:36 pm

w/o getting into a flame war that really is the philosophy behind Russian arms. Cheap to produce and reliable as hell. It's isn't a surprise that the manufacture of their arms has been adopted by many, many countries.

Reply

clowe June 28, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Well, Sev…enlighten us…!?

Reply

Sev June 28, 2010 at 6:37 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_1_Underwater_Defe… (US weapon)
As to my previous post. The difference in our weapons is due to differences in philosophy. Russia wanted a durable, easy to use lead spitter for its massive, poorly trained conscript army. It emphasized overwhelming force with cheap weapons and soldiers. The US wanted a weapon that could fire accurately, was lightweight and provide lots of firepower. The M16 is well engineered (it was dumbass politics that gave our soldiers dirty ammo and no cleaning kits, so dont get into that, the M16 is a fine weapon) and thus more expensive. Russia wanted to build an empire for cheap using the quantity over quality philosophy. Thats why you see so many people using the Ak. Its cheap and mass produced and easy to use. Anyone can use it. The M16 is a weapon for the well trained soldier (or Marine I should say ;-)) and requires more discipline to use. Its for that reason (in addition to expense) that rebels and other poorly trained forces use the Ak over the M16. Its specifically designed for use by poorly trained, undisciplined fighters.

Reply

Sev June 28, 2010 at 6:38 pm

cont'd……
Now thats not to say we in the US can't have a high quality weapon without AK47 like durability (i.e. HK416). Notice that most western forces use M16-like weapons with volunteer armies, while eastern countries with largely conscript soldiers (i.e. china) use the AK47 or copies of it. It's a difference in philosophy and while the AK is more popular, the countries that largely use 5.56 weapons like the M16 are usually, well in lack of a better term, better and more successful than those countries.

Reply

IronV June 29, 2010 at 11:19 pm

Right on. The AK-47 is a piece of junk next to the M-16. Adopt the AK-47 and you can forget about marksmanship…

Reply

Jo6pack June 30, 2010 at 12:28 pm

True, the Ak47 isn't "as" accurate as the M16, but that isn't to say the Ak47 is "inaccurate". There is a lot of miss-information out there as to the accuracy of the Ak47, and for what it is designed to do (i.e. kill at 300m) it does that just as well as tons of other assault rifles. As this website states <a href="http://(http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/akseries.htm)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/akseries.htm) "The average AKM will generally do 4-6 MOA with AK47's doing about 3- 5MOA. Modern studies done by the United States, the former Soviet Union, former Warsaw Pact countries, NATO ( North Atlantic Treaty Organization) show that modern combat is generally at ranges less than 300 meters. So accuracy of 4-6MOA is sufficient since that would cover 12"=18" at 300 yards or the average size of an adult male torso. " The Ak47 isn't designed to be a pin-point rifle, but it DOES do the job for what it was designed for.

Also, the Ak47 is but one incarnation of the AK series of rifles. The AK has seen vast improvements over the decades such as the AMD65, the AK74, and so forth. Accuracy has all been improved with these models, wither they use the 7.62 round or 5.45 round.

"Notice that most western forces use M16-like weapons with volunteer armies.." well duh, who do think is aiding them? Of course the US is going outfit its allies with M16's. :)

"The M16 is a weapon for the well trained soldier (or Marine I should say ;-)) and requires more discipline to use." Just as a side note, the Ak74 and AKN is used by the Russian Spetsnaz. :)

Reply

Isgon June 28, 2010 at 7:09 pm

Quantity has a quailty all it's own

Reply

Sev June 28, 2010 at 9:18 pm

SUre. Maybe in the 18th and mid 20th centuries. But with long range ballistic missiles and various other weapons that can kill large masses of people easily, quantity kinda looses it's luster. I could use the Gulf War and 2003 Iraq war as an example but….well those guys were just incompetent.

Reply

Bob June 28, 2010 at 9:47 pm

I admit that I like the AR15 platform, and agree the M-16 got a bad rap in VN, because of failures in the supply and support system (bad ammo and no training re care and maintenance). You have to admit that the Ak and its relatives have an certain romantic alure. They are great when the fighting is, say anywhere from 2 feet to 200 yards and they certainly are sturdy. The HK 416 in 6.5 Grendal would be the best of both worlds, except with the 6.5 you can reach out to 600+ yards and touch someone, so that they know they have been touched.

Reply

Sev June 29, 2010 at 6:09 pm

I'd prefer the m4 at close combat (Actually the HK416 carbine for its reliability) to the AK. Mainly because at distances under 300 yards the velocity of the 5.56 is still high enough to tumble and not over penetrate. But then again a 6.5 would be a better trade off. Not only that but the whole Ak vs M16 argument is totally unneccessary. I'm positive that many modern weapons are so well refined that both are inferior. The SCAR for example.

Reply

Bob June 29, 2010 at 8:50 pm

Well said and reasoned

Jo6pack June 30, 2010 at 12:37 pm

A very good point, while both rifles have their pluses/minuses, more modern weapons make these platforms show their age significantly.

Kris June 30, 2010 at 3:17 am

Just saying, most arguments against a higher caliber are un-neccesary. the 556 round is designed not to penetrate and instead, bounce around in the bodies of our targets. compared to it's higher powered variant, the 762, which has comparibly more velocity and power… thus blowing a hole straight through a body.

the 556 is a glorified .22 round. a high-speed round that literally rips the internals of our enemies into tiny remnants of what once were organs. the "splash damage" of this round is unbelievable… for this reason, we use the 556.

Reply

Riceball June 30, 2010 at 12:01 pm

The only problem with that as time has passed the rifling in the barrels have gotten tighter to increase range and (mostly) accuracy by make the round more stable in flight. As a result (from what I've read) the round no longer tumbles as much and, with the standard issue green tip round, has a tendency to simply zip through unarmored targets leaving nice, neat 5.56mm holes in the target. Admittedly this is from anecdotal accounts that I read about in Black Hawk Down and I don't have any first hand experience with firing 5.56 rounds at anything besides paper targets. I believe that the argument for larger rounds like 7.62 is that they have more knockdown power so that even if they don't kill the target outright it will knock them down making it that much easier to finish them off if not taking them out of the fight.

Reply

Jo6pack June 30, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Exactly the reason why the Russian 5.45 was developed. It's basically the Russian equivalent of the 5.56 and was born out of the Russian/Afghanistan conflict when the Soviets saw that the 7.62×39 round was simply blowing holes through the Afghan's and not producing more "killing" shots via tumbling around inside. It was reported that the 7.62×39 round required 5-7" of soft target to produce a tumbling effect, whereas the 5.45 needed only 2-3". That, and the rifle developed to shoot the 5.45 (the Ak74) is inherently more accurate than it's big brother the 47. :)

Reply

coolhand77 July 1, 2010 at 9:45 am

This is the OOOOOOOLD version. Apparently theres a newer version that can use either 5.45 ammo or special 5.45 ammo for underwater work. http://world.guns.ru/assault/as100-e.htm

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: