Talk:AN-94

The AN-94's unique muzzle configuration: does it work?

A closer examination of the muzzle in the photos of this special-issue firearm will reveal that it has a very unusual muzzle attachment like a sideways figure 8. From the little I been able to read about it, this strange muzzle shape is supposed to reduce the sound signature of the AN-94's firing by shifting part of the muzzle blast's sound waves into ultrasound (much like a dog whistle does).

Note: There is a difference in this case between "reducing sound signature" and "making it safe to use without hearing protection." Just because part of the muzzle blast is shifted to ultrasound which is not detectable by most adult human ears, doesn't mean that it's much closer to hearing safe, since ultrasound can still damage one's hearing if at a high enough intensity.

Has anyone actually gotten their hands on an AN-94 compared its muzzle blast volume to that of an AK-74M? Or would the Russian Special Forces be better off with traditional suppressors on threaded barrels for the AN-94 in case they want something with more range than a 9x39mm firearm can offer but with similarly low sound signature? --Mazryonh 10:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know the AN-94 have only two elite teams (brigades) - Tank and infantry. But this is just talk, nothing more. I have never seen in our (Russian) television broadcasts, or live the soldiers with these weapons. Including special forces soldiers. Special forces, like the rest of the army are equipped with different types of AK, or for special purposes, the weapon caliber 9 x 39. In the hands of our special forces is easier to see the «Accuracy International Arctic Warfare» than the AN-94.

Note: I am absolutely sure that all devices on the trunk of the AN-94 are needed to improve the accuracy of fire, but not for noise reduction.--Flexo 09:22, 25 February 2012 (CST)

I have a hard time believing that the strange "sideways 8" bulge along the AN-94's muzzle actually improves accuracy. If it were really that simple, wouldn't it be invented earlier and be used en masse by other assault rifle manufacturers? The "bandwagon effect" (where lots of people try to emulate someone's success by adopting similar techniques or products) is seen in all its unoriginal glory just by looking at how many handgun manufacturers have come out with glock-type pistols (safe-action triggers plus Glock-style striker firing). But it's also strange that no units you've seen have actually been publicly using it. Maybe they don't feel it offers enough of an improvement over the AK-74M? --Mazryonh 06:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I found in Russian Wikipedia: “At the end of the barrel is a muzzle compensator, designed as lying horizontally "Eight". This form facilitates self-cleaning in the trunk of fire” (hope that I made the correct translation).

I think that the AN-94 just much more expensive than an AK-74. And this is the reason for its small quantity. In addition, 75% of Russian soldiers are military service for only 1 year (during the Soviet period of service for 2 years). In this situation, there is no point in changing the AK-74 to AN-94 (at least in large quantities). At the same time, professionals have any weapon that they need - from the Glock to the AWP.--Flexo 09:22, 25 February 2012 (CST)

AN-94 = not getting adopted?

Apparently, the special forces soldiers who have used the AN-94 hate it. I don't see it getting adopted, for this reason and the reason stated above. Jeddostotle7 (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Apparently the guts of the rifle are extremely complex to manage the two-round burst and the AN-94 isn't actually very reliable or easy to maintain as a result. And when you have units used to AK derivatives, a finicky weapon is going to seem hopelessly overcomplicated compared to what you're used to. Evil Tim (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2012 (EST)