It is no secret that, in addition to the well-known types of weapons that are accepted into service in the army and law enforcement agencies, there are still a lot of little-known, and sometimes completely forgotten models. Conducting all kinds of competitions, the purpose of which was to adopt a particular representative of a particular class of weapons, has already been covered in detail in countless articles. But, despite this, Soviet uniform machine guns were deprived of attention. From the moment the very idea of creating material on this topic appeared, it remained a mystery to me why this happened and everyone stubbornly refuses to raise this layer of the history of domestic weapons, but as the search for information proceeds, the answer came by itself.
Despite the fact that at the moment any information is available on the Internet, there is practically no data on the unified machine guns of the Soviet Union. Of course, there are references that are most often taken from printed publications, but there are simply no detailed descriptions, distinctive features, and even weight and size characteristics for most models. Accordingly, there seems to be nothing to write about, which explains the absence of such articles.
Despite the scarcity and sometimes complete lack of information, I will try to at least minimize the gaps in this area, and perhaps this article will become a catalyst for a more detailed study of the issue by other authors who have more opportunities in finding information. Unfortunately, I cannot pretend that this article will be complete and detailed, but I will try to collect the data that I have found in one place.
Domestic single machine gun. Start
Even in the comments under the article on German uniform machine guns, a small dispute erupted about where and when the very idea of a single machine gun came from. It is difficult to persuade someone and change the opinion that has already formed over the years, especially since the argumentation: “since“one”is not written, it means that it is not” is iron. I am starting from the very idea of using a machine gun, both with a bipod and on a machine with a single design, and Fedorov was the first to suggest such a proposal on the territory of present-day Russia. Does not exclude from the concept of a single machine gun the possibility of using this weapon on armored vehicles, in aviation, twin anti-aircraft installations and so on, if all this is possible to implement without changes in the design of the weapon, then this is only "a plus".
One can argue that virtually any machine gun chambered for a rifle cartridge can be equipped with a bipod or mounted on a machine, which, of course, will not make it "one". Vladimir Grigorievich Fedorov initially proposed a design that allows the use of a machine gun as a manual, easel and aircraft. Anyone who would say that this is different from the concept of a single machine gun may throw a stone or even two at me.
But there is no need to rush to pick up the heavier cobblestones, here is an excerpt from the Artkom's conclusion on the test results of the samples proposed by Fedorov dated 1923-31-05:. And already in 1926, the following were developed on a single basis: a self-loading rifle and its shortened version (carbine), an assault rifle, three versions of light machine guns, on their basis a tank machine gun, aircraft machine guns (including twin and triple), a light and heavy heavy machine gun … All this diversity appeared, including due to the fact that Fedorov began to work with the well-known Degtyarev.
It is not at all correct to say that the idea itself is to use one and the same structure to close the "holes" in weapons and, in general, this is a forced measure. Not all countries can afford to be armed with motley models for specific tasks, and even those that can afford it, for some reason, do not do this. Savings can be different, forced and planned, but it does not cease to be savings from this, namely, savings are the reason for the creation of such a subclass of weapons as a single machine gun.
Despite this, it is difficult to argue with the fact that a full-fledged single machine gun was not in service with the country for a long time. If the primacy of the idea originated on the territory of the USSR, then its implementation began after the end of the Second World War.
Usually, in such a situation, they immediately begin to look for the guilty ones, but it is easy to judge this even now from our time. It is easy to talk about what needed to be done with a mug of coffee in a comfortable chair, drawing on someone else's experience, including the experience of foreign designers. In this case, it should be noted that the first single machine gun, which was put into service and which was produced in large quantities, was created in Germany and it was after the German troops showed the effectiveness of this weapon that a similar subclass of machine guns began to be seriously thought about in other countries. … Actually, the same story was with that class of weapons, which we usually call an assault rifle. The idea was long ago, but the implementation arrived in time after the weapon demonstrated its effectiveness in another army. So looking for someone who slowed down the emergence of a single machine gun in service with the army is meaningless.
Garanin machine gun model 1947
After the end of the Great Patriotic War, GAU formed tactical and technical requirements, which became the basis for future uniform machine guns. Usually, the countdown from the creation of a single domestic machine gun to the adoption of the PC begins in 1953, with the Nikitin machine gun, which is not entirely true, or rather not at all true. According to the requirements that were originally formulated by the GAU, the first machine gun was created back in 1947 by Georgy Semenovich Garanin.
The basis for the weapon was an automation system with the removal of powder gases from the barrel bore, the barrel bore was locked by turning the bolt two stops. Ammunition was fed directly from an open belt. For testing, the machine gun was presented with an attached bipod, as well as on machines in a wheeled and tripod version.
The test result was not the best, or rather a failure. The weapon had a lot of shortcomings, the main one of which was the frequent refusals when supplying ammunition. The weapon received the rating "Further work on this machine gun is impractical", but, despite this, once again the expediency of adopting a single machine gun was noted, in addition, the requirements for new weapons were adjusted.
Nikitin-Sokolov single machine gun TKB-521
This single machine gun is quite well-known and has been written about it many times, it is this weapon that will subsequently compete with the Kalashnikov machine gun, however, years remained until the final of this struggle, and the Nikitin-Sokolov machine gun itself was born in 1953, two years before the official start of the competitive race.
This weapon is also interesting because the then young and unknown designer Yuri Mikhailovich Sokolov took part in its creation, and the participation is the most direct, which is sometimes forgotten, calling the machine gun a Nikitin machine gun. According to Grigory Ivanovich himself, the young designer was not only present, but contributed to the design of the trigger, the automation system, the barrel structure, in a word, he was fully involved in the work on the project.
The basis of the automation of the Nikitin-Sokolov machine gun was a system for removing powder gases from the bore with a shut-off valve for powder gases, which subsequently affected the results of the competition. The barrel bore was locked when the bolt was turned. Interestingly, the feed of the cartridge from the tape to the chamber was organized, which was straight, despite the presence of a rim on the ammunition. Removing the cartridge from the tape was realized using a lever, which, when the bolt group was moving, "snapped" the cartridge out of the tape.
At the first stage of the competition, the Nikitin-Sokolov machine gun showed more than decent results, leaving behind the design of the new Garanin 2B-P-10 and Silin-Pererushev TKB-464 machine gun in 1956. However, in the course of further tests, in 1958, a serious shortcoming of the new weapon was revealed, which had not previously been given importance.
In order to ensure a uniform pressure of the powder gases on the piston of the bolt carrier, the designers used a cut-off of the powder gases. This gave the weapon stability in operation, however, it imposed its own typos on the operating conditions. So, the weapon, being immersed in water, after being removed from it, refused to conduct automatic fire. The shooter had to cock the bolt several times in order for the possibility of automatic fire to become available again. It would seem that the drawback is more than minor and one could turn a blind eye to it, since there are no underwater machine-gun crews in the army either then or now, and is not expected. Nevertheless, it was planned to actively use the new weapon on armored vehicles, so contact with water could not be ruled out, respectively, such delays, although in a rare form, could be present in the weapon in the future.
This was the only serious drawback of the Nikitin-Sokolov machine gun, which did not allow him to win the competition. In terms of its other characteristics, the weapon was at the level of the Kalashnikov machine gun, and in some moments it even slightly surpassed it, but the problem outlined above was not solved by the designers.
Single machine gun Garanin 2B-P-10
Having made a not very successful start, Georgy Semenovich Garanin did not abandon the idea of creating a single machine gun of his own design. So by 1956, he submitted his machine gun for testing under the designation 2B-P-10.
This time, the weapon's automation was built according to the scheme with a semi-free breech, unfortunately, it was not possible to find reliable information on the implementation of braking of the bolt group, since there is a difference in this issue in various sources. There is often information about the use of a modified bolt group, similar to that from the German MG-42 machine gun, but since there is not a single image of the 2B-P-10 bolt, it is hardly worth talking about authenticity. Conversely, the designer used a direct ammunition supply system, but this time there were no problems with the supply of the weapon.
The main problems of the weapon were low accuracy and its sensitivity to contamination. The latter, in general, and not surprising with a semi-free bolt, especially considering that the machine guns were tested and "dry", wiped from grease. According to the test results, the new Garanin machine gun failed again and again further work on this design was considered inappropriate.
Single machine gun Silin-Pereruschev TKB-464
This machine gun is another one that is usually only mentioned, but does not go into details, and in fact there are not so many details. The designers decided to take the Goryunov machine gun, already well mastered in production, as the basis for the new machine gun, which to some extent could ensure the success of the weapon and tip the scales in its favor when choosing between samples with identical characteristics. However, this sample was eliminated from the competition due to the rupture of ammunition casings during feeding.
The basis of the automatics of the machine gun was the automation system with the removal of powder gases from the barrel bore, while the barrel bore was locked when the bolt was tilted to the side.
It is not entirely clear why the designers failed to establish a normal supply of ammunition when using the same belt from the Goryunov machine gun, and what kind of problems arose in this case. Even more questions are raised by the fact that this design of the machine gun was considered unpromising and further work on it was inappropriate, although bringing such a design to acceptable performance would give a tangible financial advantage if adopted.
Shilin AO-29 machine gun
Further - less. Virtually nothing is known about this machine gun, except for its weight of 6, 7 kilograms, the fact that it consisted of 96 parts and that the spent cartridge case is thrown forward and downward.
Obviously, the weapon's automation is built on the removal of powder gases from the bore, and there is nothing more to say about the design of the machine gun only in appearance. It can be assumed that the weapon in its design should have had some unique features, especially given the fact that Tkachev is often indicated as the co-author of this sample. You can also find information about co-authorship with Lyubimov, which is doubtful, since this designer was involved in work on another project of a single machine gun. In any case, this machine gun is a big white spot in the history of the creation of a single domestic machine gun, although, it would seem, not so much time has passed for such spots to form.
Machine gun Gryazev-Lyubimov-Kastornov AO-22
This machine gun is another unknown weapon with a complete lack of information on it, but it arouses even more interest in view of the design features that are visible even from one image of the machine gun. In particular, it is striking that in the design of the machine gun there is an annular piston, which is pushed by the powder gases. At the same time, one can only guess how the quick replacement of the barrel was implemented in the weapon, how it reacted to overheating of the barrel, and so on.
By the way, it is usually believed that such an arrangement of the chamber for the removal of powder gases for machine guns and assault rifles is not the best solution, but there are references to such weapons as the AO-22M. So there is a slight hint of further development of the design of this machine gun, which means that it was decided that the design has potential, since they tried to develop it in the future. It is worth noting that it is not entirely clear when exactly the modernized weapon was presented, before the PC was adopted or later.
Single machine gun Garanin 2B-P-45
Let's return to the more famous weapons, although information on them is rather scarce. Two failures with the wording about the futility of the design did not stop Garanin, the designer proposed his third version of the machine gun, which in its design was not similar to the previous two. It is impossible not to notice that, if we take the totality of the work done, then Georgy Semenovich did a much larger volume than other designers, although this work remained unnoticed.
The new machine gun was already based on automation with the removal of powder gases from the bore, locking was carried out when the bolt was turned. Power was supplied from the Goryunov machine gun belt, and the ejection of spent cartridges was implemented downward. Obviously, the designer did not have enough time to bring his latest version of the weapon to the final stage of the competition, which led to the absence of his machine gun among the finalists.
In general, one cannot fail to notice that the main problem faced by the designer is the inability to bring his weapon to acceptable characteristics and satisfactory performance. And in the first and second cases, the samples were demonstrated in a very raw form and clearly could not impress the commission, in connection with which the work on the designs stopped and each time they had to start all over again. Even without the opportunity to study the information from the recollections of the designer himself about the environment in which the work was carried out, it is safe to say that the haste was to blame for everything.
By the way, it can be noted that in almost every competition for new weapons for the Soviet army, one can single out a designer who stubbornly went ahead, despite constant failures. Now it is fashionable to raise the topic of unrecognized geniuses, but, in most cases, the refusal to new models of weapons was quite justified, which was clearly demonstrated with the single Garanin machine guns. Nevertheless, the amount of work and dedication of Georgy Semenovich cause only respect.
How the single Kalashnikov machine gun won
You can talk about the Kalashnikov machine gun for a long time and persistently, repeating everything written earlier and despite the fact that this machine gun won the competition, which means it was better than its competitors, it no longer arouses such interest, since it has become familiar and known to everyone.
At the final stage of the competition, the PC fought against TKB-521. It is noteworthy that back in 1958, a decision was made on the serial production of Nikitin-Sokolov machine guns, but Mikhail Timofeevich joined the fight, violating these plans. Work on a new machine gun was started obviously later than other competitors, however, Kalashnikov's capabilities were wider, at least in the form of a resource of already quite experienced employees of the design bureau. One could even say that to some extent the conditions were not entirely equal. By the final of the competition, a sample of weapons was provided, which in its characteristics, if not superior, was equal to the Nikitin-Sokolov machine gun, and, perhaps, the final result of the competition would have to be postponed after additional tests, but the TKB-521 summed up the design feature of the powder gases removal unit … After the machine guns were submerged, the Kalashnikov machine gun worked flawlessly immediately after extraction, while the Nikitin-Sokolov machine gun habitually refused to fire in bursts after water procedures, requiring several shots with manual reloading. This was the reason for losing the competition.
In addition, Mikhail Timofeevich himself recalled that during the tests, another unpleasant incident was associated with the Nikitin-Sokolov machine gun. During the tests, one of the shooters fired a shot without resting the butt on the shoulder, for which he received this very butt in the face, earning a bruise on this very face. Whether this should be attributed to weapons is a moot point. Given the use of identical ammunition and a similar automation system, it is very doubtful that the recoil between the PK and the TKB-521 could have varied significantly. Rather, it is a matter of chance, and only those who participated in those tests can draw conclusions about a more comfortable recoil of the weapon when firing.
Thus, in 1961, a new single machine gun, developed under the leadership of Kalashnikov, was adopted by the Soviet army.
Single machine gun Nikitin TKB-015
But on the victory of a single machine gun, developed under the leadership of Kalashnikov, the rivalry between Nikitin and Mikhail Timofeevich did not end, just as the history of Soviet uniform machine guns did not end. In 1969, a modernized PC appeared, and with it its main competitor, the Nikitin TKB-015 machine gun, appeared.
This time, the designer, although he used automation with the use of part of the powder gases discharged from the bore to reload the weapon, but refused to cut off, so now the weapon should not be afraid of bathing in theory. The highlight of the new machine gun was the bolt group. The barrel bore is wedge-shaped, while the swinging bolt shackle at the moment the bolt carrier passes to the forward position hit the drummer, which initiated the shot. Sounds very familiar, especially for those familiar with the design of the NSV machine gun. It was from TKB-015 that this decision migrated, which once again suggests that the work of a designer, even if his weapon is not accepted for service, does not go just like that.
As the tests showed, both machine guns showed almost identical results, with an alternating slight advantage, but it is not difficult to guess that, for economic reasons, PKM gave the victory. Since the production of weapons had already been established, there was no point in mastering the release of new weapons with similar characteristics, which it is not yet known how it will show itself in the series. At that time, it was necessary to provide something out of the ordinary, which was difficult to do provided that identical ammunition was used.
The mass of the TKB-015 machine gun was 6.1 kilograms. The total length was equal to 1085 millimeters with a barrel length of 605 millimeters.
PKM and its development
As with the first version of the Kalashnikov machine gun, which won the competition for the first single machine gun for the Soviet army, it is pointless to say something about the PKM, since everything that could be said has already been said. This is a reliable weapon with its own advantages and disadvantages, and judging by the distribution and recognition by foreign experts, the PKM has clearly more advantages than disadvantages.
At its core, the PKM machine gun is a Serbian-made Zastava M84 machine gun, the only difference from the original weapon is the butt. In the original version, they tried to repeat the design of the PKM in China under the designation Type 80, however, this happened after the modernization, as a result, the weapon received the designation Type 86.
The PKM became the basis for the further development of domestic weapons, in particular the single Pecheneg machine gun, however, this is no longer a Soviet development, although, of course, very interesting, thanks, so to speak, active ventilation of the weapon barrel due to the difference in atmospheric pressure at the muzzle and receiver. Of no less interest is the Barsuk machine gun, aka AEK-999, which, together with a new barrel and individual technical solutions, also has a device for reducing the sound of a shot (PBS cannot be called a language). This was implemented primarily not so much to ensure the disguise of the machine-gun crew when firing, but to ensure comfort in the process of using weapons by reducing the sound of a shot from a weapon. Despite the fact that this machine gun is often called silent, this, of course, is not the case, although the volume of the sound of the shot is really reduced significantly.
In other words, the weapon proved its right to exist not only by victories in competitions, but also by the fact that it became a platform for creating new samples, which are all based on the same design with additions and minor changes. As is often noticed on many specialized Internet resources, the Kalashnikov machine gun will leave the army only if the 7, 62x54 is removed from service, although at the same time, it seems to me, a weapon will be developed based on it, unless the cartridge is replaced with something fundamentally new.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to share my doubts about the fact that when the PKM was put into service, only the Nikitin TKB-015 machine gun competed with it. Obviously, there should have been other samples of uniform machine guns, but they are not even mentioned.
Also, one more interesting fact cannot be missed. The first competition for a single machine gun for the Soviet army was attended by a "foreign guest", namely the Czechoslovak machine gun UK vz. 59 designs by Antonin Foral. This machine gun is really very good for its time, and it really could compete with the samples presented at this competition, but, of course, one could not count on winning.
It is impossible to ignore one more moment in the history of the emergence of a single domestic machine gun. Degtyarev also worked on a single machine gun of his own design, and he began work on the weapon as one of the first domestic gunsmiths, simultaneously with Garanin, but Vasily Alekseevich never finished his work, since he died on January 16, 1949.
Once again, I want to note that this article does not claim to fully cover the issue, it is rather a compilation of that small fraction of information that is currently available in various sources. Obviously, there is a lack of not only a description of the individual units of the weapon, but also their weight and size characteristics. So, if any of the readers have access to such data, then their posting in the comments is only welcome, perhaps by joint efforts it will be possible to eliminate the gaps in this rather extensive layer of the history of domestic small arms.
