Assuming that “new” doesn’t mean anything here, you’re looking at the Russian AK-630 or a variant thereof. describes it as a “fully automatic naval close-in weapon system based on a six-barreled 30 mm rotary cannon. In 630, “6” means 6 barrels and “30” means 30mm. The system’s primary purpose is defense against anti-ship missiles and other precision guided weapons. It can also . . .

be employed against fixed or rotary wing aircraft, ships and other small craft, coastal targets, and floating mines. Despite the title of this video, the AK-630 “only” shoots 5k rounds per minute. As opposed to America’s Phalanx CIWS, which fires 10k rounds per minute. Ours looks prettier, too.

Recommended For You

31 Responses to In Russia Super Burst Gun Fires You

    • “If I buy one do I have to get an ATF stamp for it?”

      Not if you buy one from former California State Senator Leeland Yee. You might have to wait five years though until he gets out of prison for gun running. But I am sure he will be able to fill your order promptly upon his release. Being in prison will enable him to establish even more contacts and distribution channels.

  1. 10k rounds per minute out of the Phalanx? Pretty sure you mean 4500. It’s an M61, there’s only so fast you can spin those things. Incidentally, the AK630 in the video is the twin mounting, which is capable of up to 10k rounds per minute. It’s also gas driven, rather than electrically (like the Phalanx), so it spins up to max ROF much faster.

  2. Do any of our enemies have any weapon ideas that they didn’t copy or steal from us? I suppose we should consider it a compliment, you know, that our military has the coolest, deadliest firepower worth copying/stealing? Is imitation really the sincerest form of flattery? Or is it just that their own weapons ideas suck that bad?

    • The Phalanx CIWS system was has been in service since 1980. The Russian, formerly Soviet AK-630 system was originally developed in 1963. Oh, those whacky time traveling Soviets, stealing ideas from the future.

      More seriously, weapons design tends to follow similar trends. It’s not always a case of “dur hur, copy ‘Merica,” it’s a case of different countries solving the same problems in similar ways. Plenty of our military tech is derived from overseas.

    • Our CIWS system is actually inferior to other options out there, for a number of reasons. Nor did we come up with the idea first…

    • Most of our current offensive doctrine was more or less copied from the Germans. Most of our equipment is decades old at the very least as well.

    • We totally stole the Bradley IFV from the Russians- the BMP-1 entered service in 1966. The Russians deployed a true assault rifle long before we did, too.

    • The main gun on the M1 mbt is a German design. Before that our tanks were equipped with a British designd main gun. Our official military siderm is an Italian design. The marines used the Harrier, a british design.

      Mixing and matching military gear is as old as militaries.

  3. I am wondering how effective these systems are. Against one missile I think it would do OK. But how about a bunch of rockets or shells fired at the same time? I think the time to acquire the target(s) is too slow and could easily be overwhelmed. I am all about low-cost low-tech solutions to emperial measures and counter measures 🙂

  4. I knew a Navy Officer who stated that the Russian ships practiced towing one another quite often. I was amazed to see the ships propelling themselves under their own power.

  5. The drawback to rapid firing guns is, without an adequate targeting system you are simply wasting ammo at a faster rate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *