I ask because I came across this pic on reddit a week or two ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/iwern2/russian_paratrooper_in_belarus_with_a_very_nice/

It struck me as odd that the AK-12 - whose main upgrade seems to be the ability to easily mount optics - didn't have an optic. 

Aside from cost and complexity, how does the first prototype compared to the currently accepted AK-12 design?
Was there any reliability problems with the first prototype?

It looks like this first design have some major improvements like the ambi AR style selector, hinged top cover with rails, and no more open slot for the reciprocating charging handle. It's a completely new design rather than just an upgraded version of AK74.

Zlobin's AK-12 was too expensive, and had many reliability and durability problems. Basically it failed the trials, and there were no time nor resources or will in the new top management to keep it going

Thanks for your answers, Maxim.

Quoting from your text:

> A decision ultimately was made to retire the failed design and its chief designer, and to get back to work developing a weapon that would be better suited to existing manufacturing processes

Is K. Concern trapped on AK production line? I mean, AFAIK AK-74M production lines are really mature and well established and they are based on huge mass production. Was a change on such lines a too impractical effort? 

 

poliorcetes said:

Is K. Concern trapped on AK production line? I mean, AFAIK AK-74M production lines are really mature and well established and they are based on huge mass production. Was a change on such lines a too impractical effort? 

The AK-12 has advanced a lot from the Ak-74m, but when there is nothing wrong with the round or the gun there is not really any pressure to do things differently.

I see. Such a shame. What's your opinion about the A545?

Also mind explaining how the 2 round burst on the AK12 works? i'm curious how the fcg looks like.

A545 is a nice rifle, however only real life use could show if all that added complication and cost is worth the added effectiveness in automatic fire, which, according to all historical documents is not that big.

as for AK-12, I never get down to details of its trigger group, and in all honesty i hope that military would drop the 2-rd mode as soon as possible.

Twice the cost the DOD pays for an m4a1 is not what I'd call super cheap.

Also, I HEAVILY beg to differ on a 4 moa gun being "good enough".

 The serbs are the ones doing aluminum uppers not the Russians btw.

I wish you would take some time to actually get some of your information straight if you are going to posture as authoritatively as you tend to.

It would greatly help the signal to noise ratio of your posts

The pics i posted are from Kalashnikov Concern not from Zastava arms Serbia. And the top part looks like it might be aluminum with steel rail riveted in (material looks to thick to be steel)

AKs are far cheaper than DOD pays for M4a1, civilian Saiga clones used to cost about us 400-500$ in shops on European civilian market ( i bought one SAIGA-MK M3 EXP-01 7-8y ago) before the sanctions, that is after 2-3 dealers and 20% VAT ,so would expect AK100 series to be cheaper in bulk , Saiga and 100 series guns are not that dissimilar .

That civilian Saiga  in 5.56 could easily do 3moa with cheap Barnaul ammo so its not unreasonable to asume the AK100series or follow on designs to do the same.

Speaking of noise I would class your post as just such. You getting fired up over nothing

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

The pics i posted are from Kalashnikov Concern not from Zastava arms Serbia. And the top part looks like it might be aluminum with steel rail riveted in (material looks to thick to be steel)

Agree. A CNC could make a bunch of those easily and modifying them is much simpler than steel. As noted previously though I expect the final design to be steel. 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

AKs are far cheaper than DOD pays for M4a1

And infinitely more reliable.