In 1909, further trials were announced. Fedorov would re-submit his 1906 model which was received with great acclaim from the military, for it was the only rifle that passed all endurance and shooting trials. This design would receive further development up to 1913, when Fedorov would also introduce a non-rimmed cartridge to pair with his rifle, 6x57mm. This 1913 rifle went as far as being ordered for field trials, 150 to be exact. However, due to the declaration of war in the following year, all developmental work was ordered to immediately cease.

A year passes, and the threat of a central power’s invasion dwindles and interest in automatic weapons picks up again, both in aviation and in the trenches. Fedorov is sent to France as an observer and there he examines the Chauchat automatic rifle and its deployment as a light machine gun. His findings inspire the Russian authorities to create an experimental battalion, the 189th Izmail division, to be armed with automatic weaponry, including C96 pistols, and most importantly, Fedorov M1913 rifles, some having been adapted to use Madsen magazines. This is one of the major myths permeating the Fedorov lineage, as the later 1919 rifle is often associated as being the version fielded during the Great War.

However, there was an actual model of 1916 Fedorov rifle which resembled, in part, the later 1919, being carbine length, using the 6.5mm Arisaka ammunition, and being fully automatic; These were designated for the air force, which received them with great enthusiasm, to the point where 25,000 automatic rifles, or “Avtomats” as they were now being called (to differentiate them from the infantry version) were considered to be necessary for the war. Obviously, for a country like Russia that lacked the manufacturing capacity to produce even bolt action rifles for their regular infantry, producing this number of complex automatic rifles was unfeasible. Even with this caveat, production of the Fedorov was deemed to be of great importance, leading to major factories like Putilov and Izhevsk to be built to produce parts for the Fedorov, which they allegedly did. By the end of 1917, the Kovrov Arsenal was also instructed to start production of the Avtomat. Although, this wouldn’t last long, for the Russian Revolution would temporarily halt any development or production of this new automatic rifle.

The Kovrov Arsenal, when originally built, was partially funded by the D.R.S. (Dansk Rekylriffel Syndikat) company to produce the Madsen light machine gun to the Russian forces, who were one of the first countries to field it in the Russo-Japanese war. When the Russian Civil War broke out, the Kovrov region fell into Soviet control and they confiscated all production of firearms from there, including the very few Fedorovs that had been produced to that point. These few guns captured did impress the recently created Soviet Army which contacted Fedorov to work as the main director of the plant. The Soviets also requested a further 15,000 Madsen rifles and 9,000 Fedorov rifles to be manufactured as soon as possible, investing heavily into the plant, with a new design bureau and manufacturing buildings.

For this effort, the Fedorov rifle was simplified to ease production, which resulted in the version that we identify as the Fedorov nowadays, the model of 1919. With a newly designed 25-round magazine, the iconic wooden front grip Even then, the task of manufacturing this order stalled quickly; supplies were hard to come by due to the Russian Civil War and lack of organization and manufacturing sophistication further killed the idea of producing the Fedorov in any significant quantity. Only about 100 guns were produced in the first year; peak production was in October 1923, with 822 guns.

Nevertheless, the Russians couldn’t let the opportunity of having such an innovative concept and (a genius firearms designer at their disposal) pass. Many prototypes and developmental models appeared in the early 1920s in an attempt to broaden the Fedorov system’s potential usage. Shpagin, famous for his WWII era submachinegun, collaborated with Fedorov in such an attempt. They worked to make an armored vehicle adaptation of the system, double-barreled, and with a ball mount. It was installed on early Soviet armor, such as the MS-1 tank and BA-27 armored car. Meanwhile, Degtyarev worked on a light machine gun version of the Fedorov, both a water-cooled and air-cooled, Lewis-style variant was tested with bipods and extended magazines. However, in 1925 the Soviet army canceled all firearm projects that used foreign calibers. As the Fedorov was still using the 6.5mm Arisaka cartridge, it was caught in the crossfire of the ban. Some projects would crop up later, but none would go past prototype stages. The remaining Fedorovs would end up being sent to depots.

An example of Shpagins and Degtyarevs modifications of the Fedorov, one porting a double barrel design, with inverted receivers and the other with a water-cooled jacket and bipod retrofitted.

Although it was such an innovative firearm, the Fedorov would not see much service along its troubled life. Around 120 rifles were used during the first world war, mostly converted semi-automatic M1913 rifles with extended magazines that were fielded by the 189th Izmail detachment in Romania, and a few others which were given to aviators. After that, it saw some use in the early history of the Soviet Union, but its main debut would be in the Winter War between the Soviet Union and Finland, where supply-starved Soviet troops were reissued with older surplus rifles, including Fedorovs. However, due to lack of maintenance of the somewhat complex mechanism and lack of spare parts, they were very quickly abandoned. For this reason, Finland has one of the biggest collections of Fedorov rifles.

To summarize, the history of the Fedorov has become quite murky due to the problems and conflicts that affected most, if not all, of this firearm’s history. From its humble beginnings as a semi-automatic Mosin conversion, to what some consider to be the first assault rifle ever fielded and made.
 

By Lynndon Schooler

Peter Andreevich Tkachev was a small arms engineer for TsNIITochMash, the Central Scientific Research Institute for Precision Machine Engineering, located in Klimovsk about 50 miles to the South of Moscow. A recipient of the Hero of Socialist Labor medal, he is the designer best known for creating the “BARS” Balanced Automatic Recoil System on the prototype AO-38 construction, which is his most enduring design still used today in mainstream Russian small arms production; most famously in the AK-107 and civilian Saiga MK107/SR-1.

AO-63 History

The city of Klimovsk is a small urban center. For much of its Soviet history, and to a lesser extent today, the military and engineering sites of Klimovsk were “closed” installations. Soldiers and scientists lived in on-property dormitories, concrete apartment blocks if married, or if they were lucky and in a position of command, they commuted from Moscow by an electric olive drab commuter transport train. The highest-ranking KGB and authorities naturally had a driver bring them to TsNIITochMash. Either way, work materials were never allowed to leave grounds, and the men and women who worked there for the progress and mutual defense of their country saw virtually no international recognition for their labors as seen by the hotshots in Tula or Izhevsk. Partially because of the cloak and dagger secrecy and partially because of a lack of widespread success, little is known about the designer Peter Andreevich Tkachev working alongside Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov, designer of the SKS. Before Simonov’s death in 1986, the pair finished constructing the AO-63 prototype—one of the most creative but ill-fated small arms never put into production during the Cold War.

In 1981, the Ministers of the Soviet Union called for a program to build a replacement for the AK-74. It would seek a new assault rifle with increased effectiveness in automatic and burst fire. The objective was to create a lightweight design that would increase hit probability by 1.5 to 2.0 times. The project was code-named “Abakan” after a river in the Republic of Khakassia. The program was nearly identical to sporadic U.S. efforts since WWII and later the U.S. Advanced Combat Rifle Program. Eventually, it would reach the same conclusion—“what we have is good enough, and only marginal improvement is not worth the production cost.” But at the time, it was an engineering challenge, if not a mandate, to be addressed by virtually every design shop across the USSR, including Tkachev at TsNIITochMash.

In 1984, the AO-63 development began. Tkachev answered the need for increased hit probability in a burst with a brutally simple answer. In the absence of new ammunition with duplex rounds, he would make a double-barrel rifle that could fire two rounds almost simultaneously. The most striking feature visually is its two barrels in a side-by-side configuration. Out of necessity, both barrels had their own gas system. The gun operated with two pistons, two bolts, two hammers, a dual recoil spring assembly and essentially two of everything in the core function of a rifle. Coming in at almost 8 pounds, the gun is remarkably light when its construction concept is kept in mind.

The rifle has a unique fire control group with the selector on the right side, capable of safe, semi, burst and automatic fire. In burst mode, the rifle fires the first two shots at one of the fastest rates of fire ever documented in an assault rifle—6000 rpm or one millisecond between shots. Potentially, the gun could fire simultaneously, but the delay in fire is deliberate to counteract any negative effect on ballistics and a near constant recoil impulse. When on automatic fire, the gun has a short “fast-auto” and long “slow-auto,” meaning that the first two shots will be both barrels at the near instant rate of fire, but continued trigger pressure will switch fire to only the right barrel, which will shoot at 850 rpms in continuous fire. This makes the right side the predominant barrel.

The fire control group has, interestingly, no hammer springs but rather strut springs and strut arms that are connected to the hammers. Each bolt operates independently. The charging handle is attached to the primary right carrier. There is a short linkage bar connecting each carrier at the rear, and a sleeve on the right carrier supporting the left carrier rod allows for reciprocating movement. Each carrier has a “stem” that each bolt rotates over on a cam pin. The right carrier has a separate rod which is attached to the charging handle. The spring on the charging handle rod appears to be a “momentum spring,” allowing for rearward movement of the handle before the bolts start to unlock. It likely assists in reliability and ensures equal force distributed across both bolts. When pulling back on the bolt, the linkage bar pulls the left carrier rearward unlocking the left bolt. Each piston has a support guide behind the piston head to support reciprocating movement in the gas tubes. The locking lugs are 1 inch back from the bolt face. The trigger is a double hook to grab both hammers. Note there are only one sear trip and two disconnectors. When disassembled, the selector mechanism is difficult to see because it is covered by a housing.

The magazine is always a critical part, if not the most critical part, in a firearm’s reliability. Despite the redundancy of the gun, the AO-63 fires from technically a single magazine but keeps up with the impressive rate of fire. The prototype magazine appears to be a rough steel fabrication with two chambers. The left action feeds from one 15-round stack, while the right feeds from a 30-round stack. The magazine is technically a quad-stack, with a 45-round capacity.

The Abakan Trials

Though this is only speculation, the gun was likely dropped for its high production cost and for a lack of practicality. The Abakan trials were won in 1994 by Gennadiy Nikonov at Izhmash, with his AN-94—a less accurate, heavier and more complex design. In a side-by-side comparison of examples that I have personally examined, the AO-63 is easier to clear malfunctions and maintain than the AN-94. The AN-94’s victory was underwhelming. Rather than replacing the AK-74, as was the intention of the Abakan trials, the AN-94 saw extremely limited use under the GRAU adoption designation 6P33. The collapse of the Soviet Union was likely the last nail in the coffin of the Abakan’s success, because it essentially froze military industries as the country weathered economic and social collapse. But just as likely, the culprit was the hard truth that the AN-94’s complexity and expense outweighed any advantage that its high rate of fire offered. Russian operators in highly specialized tasks are still effective with simpler Kalashnikov-based designs. Though failing to be a firearms technology breakthrough, the AN-94 carries the title of “the last Soviet designed assault rifle.”

I would like to thank the Kalashnikov Museum in Izhevsk Udmurtia for letting me inspect, disassemble and document this rifle in 2017; I regret not getting more quality detailed photographs to publish.