Latest Military Tech [Archive]

Hoon

9th July 2004, 10:54

Yeah I dunno. From soldiers point of view its hard to say without testing one in the field.
I've grown quite accustomed to the our Steyrs bullpup design now and like its shorter length and rear mag which allows changing while still staying in the aim. Also having some weight to the rear balances the rifle out nicely and makes it easier to hold with one hand. However like most gas operated assault rifles they can jam if not kept clean.

To me reliability is most important. I want to know how well it handles water, mud and sand, how many fiddly parts its has and how easy and quick it is to clean in the dark.

Also I'm not much of a fan of flashy electronic stuff. Nothing worse than the batteries going flat while you're out on patrol. And no open sights would make reaction shooting difficult (i.e. when someone pops out from a bush and you don't have time to line them up through the scope).

scumdog

9th July 2004, 11:46

At least a "lefty" like me could use it without getting a face-full of hot brass and powder particles :) , I agree about the optics, some form of aperature sight as a stand-by would be good/essential.
The military is looking at a new smaller capacity cartridge,anybody got any info? not sure if it's a shorter case or what.

jrandom

9th July 2004, 12:07

Yeah I dunno. From soldiers point of view its hard to say without testing one in the field.

Indeed. But it's an H&K... can't be *too* bad.

I've grown quite accustomed to the our Steyrs bullpup design now and like its shorter length and rear mag which allows changing while still staying in the aim.

Hmmm. I suppose you either love bullpups or hate them. Never used one myself so couldn't say...

And no open sights would make reaction shooting difficult (i.e. when someone pops out from a bush and you don't have time to line them up through the scope).

I suppose they're expecting you to go full-auto rock 'n' roll from the hip with your 100rd drum mag when that happens...

Interesting that they went for a full-auto mode with this rifle, wonder if they've solved the spray 'n' pray mode inaccuracy problems with the original M16. Or *any* carbine-sized shoulder weapon for that matter.

Skyryder

9th July 2004, 13:39

Na noisy guns. :ar15: Give me a hi tek fishing rod and reel any day, for 'real' :banana: hunting that is. :D

Skyryder

Hitcher

9th July 2004, 14:05

Read all about it:
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html

Jackrat

9th July 2004, 14:24

Na noisy guns. :ar15: Give me a hi tek fishing rod and reel any day, for 'real' :banana: hunting that is. :D

Skyryder

Hmmm,mix an match mate.
Mitchell spider cast 3kg,Mitchell water proof 8kg,Penn 320GTI 15kg.
Sako A1.308,Brno SKK.308,H&K G3 .308,Marlin M70 .22.
Martin Firecat 65-80LB,PSE Coyote 50lb,Samick SLB69 45LB,Jerry Hill wild cat deluxe 55lb,Oneida black eagle 50-70lb.

If the power ever goes out I'll be ready :whistle:

Quasievil

9th July 2004, 15:23

Big Dog

9th July 2004, 15:59

Ye Ole Faithful SLR 7.76 kick arse "you know when theyre" dead :2guns: ,
I thought the reason for discontinuing the 7.62 round in the services had to do with some international humanitarian thing?
Something about round tumble / punch. I saw a 8mm film once, supposedly filmed in nam by a reporter. A stolen 7.62 came right through a tree trunk and tore a NZ soldiers arm clean off. If it wern't real it was way to realistic.

Apparently when hit by a 7.62 you were more likely to die than a simmilar wound from any other round size.

Having never used either My preference for the M16 over the styr comes down to one thing if it came down to no ammo hand to hand which would you rather be holding.

Conversely which would you rather be hit by baseball style?

pete376403

9th July 2004, 17:03

When I were a lad, in the Territorials, our platoon corp had done a tour in Vietnam. After listening to us all grizzle about how heavy the SLRs were and why couldn't we have M16s, he said he had seen VC shot with with the high velocity round from an M16 and keep on coming, where the slow, heavy round of an SLR would knock them over, even if it didn't kill outright.

Jackrat

9th July 2004, 17:21

Looks like a peice of crap, bring back Ye Ole Faithful SLR 7.76 kick arse "you know when theyre" dead :2guns: , reliable 70's 80's rifle of choice of the NZ army. Nothing like the poofy, oops my mag fell out shit they have these days!!

Bit like the modern NZ soldier wanna bes "Oh im tired better hold up my time out card its to tuff for me", cant carry to much might hurt my back not to mention the OSH sunhat requirement Army aint what it used to be since the WANK's got into it to many poofy ways.

Gee I wonder if I will get a reaction, should do got a big bait on that Hook lol :doobey:
sorry felt like a shit stir

Well not the sort of reaction you could have got huh.
I thought the trend toward lighter and lighter calibers was just that.
Their lighter so you can carry more yet they still have the punch to do the job at hand.I remember when the Styer was first bought out,the NZ army had heaps of reliability problems with them.
Personaly if I was shooting at something that shot back I'd want BIG on my side as well. :niceone:

Quasievil

9th July 2004, 18:24

Well not the sort of reaction you could have got huh.
I thought the trend toward lighter and lighter calibers was just that.
Their lighter so you can carry more yet they still have the punch to do the job at hand.I remember when the Styer was first bought out,the NZ army had heaps of reliability problems with them.
Personaly if I was shooting at something that shot back I'd want BIG on my side as well. :niceone:

Yeah the styer came out after I left the Army but I heard that if you didnt put them together right on (a clip in the butt or something) the thing would fall apart.
Yeah heavy as hell compared to the M16, the m16 though wouldnt be my weapon of choice, my Sergent served Veitnam and commented how the US forces wanted to trade the M16 for the SLR because of the hitting power, the M16's lighter round would not always stop a enemy easily.

Holy Roller

9th July 2004, 21:10

The small calibre is not designed to kill outright but tie up man power carting the wounded out or attending to them. Wounded men reduce the moral of the company, dead men cause the men to band together and determin to get the so and so's. phsycobabble rules these days. Went on exercise with the army while at Waiouru a couple of times but only had the SLR and M16, it was all great fun for a navy bod. Small arms training at Whangaparoa was awesome fun. On the navy pistol club range days when the big guns came out to be played with showed how false the movies really were when shooting large calibre hand guns.
All this talk makes me want to go out hunting again, I'll have to organise a trip with my mate sometime, :Offtopic: sorry.

scumdog

10th July 2004, 00:10

Hmmm,mix an match mate.
Mitchell spider cast 3kg,Mitchell water proof 8kg,Penn 320GTI 15kg.
Sako A1.308,Brno SKK.308,H&K G3 .308,Marlin M70 .22.
Martin Firecat 65-80LB,PSE Coyote 50lb,Samick SLB69 45LB,Jerry Hill wild cat deluxe 55lb,Oneida black eagle 50-70lb.

If the power ever goes out I'll be ready :whistle:

JIMMINY JR!!! Your list of lethal missile dispatchers is as extensive as mine, I don't feel so guilty about them now, it's just the 4,000 or so rounds of assorted ammo that I have to worry about now. :rockon:

Yeah, don't reckon I'd starve then either :D

scumdog

10th July 2004, 00:22

I thought the reason for discontinuing the 7.62 round in the services had to do with some international humanitarian thing?
Something about round tumble / punch. I saw a 8mm film once, supposedly filmed in nam by a reporter. A stolen 7.62 came right through a tree trunk and tore a NZ soldiers arm clean off. If it wern't real it was way to realistic.

Apparently when hit by a 7.62 you were more likely to die than a simmilar wound from any other round size.

Having never used either My preference for the M16 over the styr comes down to one thing if it came down to no ammo hand to hand which would you rather be holding.

Conversely which would you rather be hit by baseball style?

They ALL tumble on impact, 7.62x39 breaks in two regularly due to design. No doubt a 7.62 (NATO I assume) just about tore the dudes arm off.

You're no more likely to die from a 7.62 then any other bullet hitting you in the same spot, it will penetrate through obstacles a bit better and travel straighter afterwards than 223 but even a 50 cal gets deflected on striking objects between the barrel and the intended target.
Still, for hunting give me a nice heavy slug every time

7.62 was dropped just because you can make a lighter rifle and a soldier can carry more ammo in 223 and if 223 doesn't kill as good as 308 (7.62) then all the better, as somebody has already said - awounded soldier ties up more resources and demoralises more than a dead one. <_<

angle

11th July 2004, 00:24

I've grown quite accustomed to the our Steyrs bullpup design now and like its shorter length and rear mag which allows changing while still staying in the aim.

But it takes longer to change that mag + in real situation you'll tend to want to get out from the line of fire to change the mag.

However like most gas operated assault rifles they can jam if not kept clean.

AK family rifles are gas operated. :rolleyes:

Also I'm not much of a fan of flashy electronic stuff. Nothing worse than the batteries going flat while you're out on patrol.

That'll be "a bugger" :shit:! XM8 is actually a G36 with a new skin. OICW does have batteries though :D

And no open sights would make reaction shooting difficult (i.e. when someone pops out from a bush and you don't have time to line them up through the scope).

Very true. Does the AUG have open sights?

P.S. I've heard that NZSAS don't like the AUG, they prefer C7A1.

Hoon

11th July 2004, 09:58

But it takes longer to change that mag + in real situation you'll tend to want to get out from the line of fire to change the mag.

Changing a mag is just changing a mag...doesn't take any longer with a Steyr. Also I like to change my mag before I actually run out of rounds when I can as this means I don't have to recock the weapon and makes the change even quicker. While you are changing mags you are vulnerable, thats why I like to keep my last round in the chamber and in the aim while I'm changing mags....just in case the target reappears.

Yep the AK47 is renown as being the cheapest and most reliable assault rifle out there. However no western country is every going to adopt it as their standard weapon because the enemy use it. Also 7.62mm rifles are out too - none of the nato countries use them anymore as a standard rifle. All our allies have adopted 5.56mm now (i.e. M16, M4, Steyr, SA80 etc) - don't ask me why I just do as I'm told with what I get given.

Yep the Steyr has basic dot sights (like a pistols) on top of the scope housing. I'm sure this will find its way onto XM8 eventually.

jrandom

11th July 2004, 16:25

They ALL tumble on impact, 7.62x39 breaks in two regularly due to design.

They tumble because a 'long 'n' thin' spitzer (pointy) shape bullet, which you'll find in all military calibers, is good for range and accuracy but can't maintain its orientation during terminal ballistics, ie, after it hits something. That's why 'elephant gun' cartridges, like most belted magnums, .416 Rigbys etc are often loaded with short fat round-nose bullets, which will keep pointing forward and get better penetration in a hard target. Like a pachyderm's head.

Spitzer bullets aren't designed to break in two, they're designed for superior ballistics over a longer range. Any fragmentation is a side effect of the design.

The flimsy wee 62gr 5.56mm FMJs are renowed for fragmenting on impact within 100m range or so. After that they slow down enough that they don't break up when they hit.

I haven't heard much on 7.62x39s (the AK47 caliber) breaking up - would imagine they'd be less likely to do so than a 5.56, since they're a more solid and heavier bullet. Certainly 7.62x51 (.308) bullets don't have a rep for fragmenting, and I've never seen an FMJ one do so.

There's plenty of info and photographs of terminal ballistics tests in gelatin (ie, shoot into a long block of it and take a lengthways photo of the hole) on the net re. the various calibers.

My arsenal? Hmmm...

Franchi SPAS-12
Mosin Nagant M-38 (1943 Izhevsk production)
ex-Australian Army L1A1 SLR
Marlin .45ACP Camp Carbine (suppressed)
Remington .308 semi-auto
Ruger Mini-14
Ruger 10/22
Beat-up old Norinco .22 semi-auto

Next I want a Mk. 5 Enfield Jungle Carbine. And a Garand, but I doubt I'll be able to lay my hands on one for an affordable price any time soon.

pete376403

11th July 2004, 17:04

Garand as in M1? I know a guy who has one in his collection, he says it has never been fired. What is of interest to me is the manufacturers stamp up by the foresight - IBM.
(IBM turned over all much of their manufacturing capacity to military during WWII. As just about everything they made in those days was mechanical - punch card machinery - they were well placed to start making other sorts of hardware)

jrandom

11th July 2004, 20:01

Garand as in M1?

Yup.

"The best battle implement ever devised" - George Patton.

Bugger the AR poodleshooters, I want an M-1.

I know a guy who has one in his collection, he says it has never been fired

TBH I'd rather have a decommissioned WW2 service rifle.

scumdog

11th July 2004, 20:56

Quote:"I haven't heard much on 7.62x39s (the AK47 caliber) breaking up"

Jrandom, I've "played" quite a bit with various weapons/bullets, I found that FMJ 7.63x39 stuff has a hard core that tears loose from the rest of the bullet on impact with reasonably solid objects (green pine-wood etc) or rock.

Mate has just about one of everything from Vickers machine gun downwards and we have a ball "experimenting",

I've got three suppressed weapons myself, just the bees-knees :sly: .

Had a video a while ago, title escapes me at the moment but it was top-knotch and showed various calibres fired into a Yank car, into a fuel tank, bullet-proof jacket etc, if I can remember what it was called I'll get back to you. :ar15:

jrandom

12th July 2004, 09:07

Jrandom, I've "played" quite a bit with various weapons/bullets, I found that FMJ 7.63x39 stuff has a hard core that tears loose from the rest of the bullet on impact with reasonably solid objects (green pine-wood etc) or rock.

Righto. I don't have an SKS or AK clone so my first-hand experience of 7.62x39 is very limited...

I've got three suppressed weapons myself, just the bees-knees

A, uh, 'friend' once told me that if you don't want to be making loud bangs, deer still fall down real good with a .45ACP JHP through the ribs :whistle:

scumdog

12th July 2004, 18:33

Righto. I don't have an SKS or AK clone so my first-hand experience of 7.62x39 is very limited...

A, uh, 'friend' once told me that if you don't want to be making loud bangs, deer still fall down real good with a .45ACP JHP through the ribs :whistle:

Another mate has a Winchester 94 in 44 with a suppressor, REAL quite, just the noise of the hammer then WHACK as the bulllet hits.

jrandom

13th July 2004, 10:47

Another mate has a Winchester 94 in 44 with a suppressor, REAL quite, just the noise of the hammer then WHACK as the bulllet hits.

Is that .44 Magnum? I wouldn't mind trading the .45 in for a .44 mag carbine. Mmmm... I thunked .44 mag was usually loaded supersonic, though? Your description sounds just like what I get out of the Marlin with .45ACP loads at 850fps. I can explode apples from the porch in the backyard with it all day long and not bother the neighbours...

scumdog

14th July 2004, 12:01

Is that .44 Magnum? I wouldn't mind trading the .45 in for a .44 mag carbine. Mmmm... I thunked .44 mag was usually loaded supersonic, though? Your description sounds just like what I get out of the Marlin with .45ACP loads at 850fps. I can explode apples from the porch in the backyard with it all day long and not bother the neighbours...

From memory it was downloaded 44 mag, the only let down was the noise of working the lever, an auto would have been better, it's one of those catch-22 situations, the lever-action was almost totally quiet if you only fired the one shot, if you missed the deer (or there were others there) they heard the action being worked, with the auto you had no choice, you had the rattle of the action being cycled anyway but at least you could remain motionless and possibly get off another quick shot.

geoffm

14th July 2004, 13:10

You could import one privately if it had appropriate mods to disable fully-automatic operation. Then it'd just be an E-class MSSA.

I wouldn't fancy your chances of getting a "permit to import" from the police commissioner. They bassically won't issue them for MSSAs, which is why AR15s are pushing $10k each - or 2-3 times their US price.
Even getting a permit for bringing in E-cat bits can be dubious.
Geoff

geoffm

14th July 2004, 13:13

The military is looking at a new smaller capacity cartridge,anybody got any info? not sure if it's a shorter case or what.
The 6.8mm Remington. A short magnum type case with around 129gr bullets. Flatter shooting, longer range, still feeds in the M16 with a new upper. Supposed to be quite good, without the kick and weight of the 0.308.
Geoff

Drunken Monkey

14th July 2004, 13:24

Their lighter so you can carry more yet they still have the punch to do the job at hand.I remember when the Styer was first bought out,the NZ army had heaps of reliability problems with them.

1) Indeed, lighter ammo and more rounds is one of the main reasons to switch to lighter ammo. There have been some complaints about the latest 'green tip' SS109 rounds - plenty of armour piercing ability, but the small, hard rounds go straight through people and don't deliver enough hydrostatic shock.

2) My flatmate was serving during the changeover to Steyrs. Reckoned the original European manufactured units were the bees knees. The only problem units were the Aussie spec'd units. Can't remember if he said they were Aussie assembled or assembled somewhere in Asia under license for the Aussie Armed Forces.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 13:25

I wouldn't fancy your chances of getting a "permit to import" from the police commissioner. They bassically won't issue them for MSSAs, which is why AR15s are pushing $10k each - or 2-3 times their US price.
Even getting a permit for bringing in E-cat bits can be dubious.
Geoff

Really? Bugger. Hmmm. Well, I haven't gotten around to getting my E cat license yet so we'll just have to wait and see (my SLR is A-classed, with a 7rd mag and plastic thumbhole buttstock - actually, 'plastic thumbhole buttstock' sounds kind of dirty, doesn't it?)

Last AR15 I saw for sale here was going for $6K at the Hunting & Fishing shop in Dargaville. I didn't notice which manufacturer it was, but the price seemed about right given the exchange rate at the time. Un-hacked-up AR15s are pretty pricey over in the USA at the moment due to their assault weapons ban legislation.

But I don't want an AR15 so I don't care...

I did have a go with an AR10 about a year ago. Very nice gun to shoot but if I had to pick, I'd still take a FAL.

jrandom

14th July 2004, 13:31

small, hard rounds go straight through people and don't deliver enough hydrostatic shock.

I seem to recall the terminal ballistics research showing back in the 80s or thereabouts that hydrostatic shock and 'energy dumping' were myths.

And I think you might have mixed up the round designations - SS109 was the original NATO designation for the jacketed lead round, which was M193, 55gr FMJ lead bullet in the US military. The green-tipped US M855 ball, which has a slightly heavier 62gr bullet, has a steel penetrator tip and is probably the one you're thinking of. It's probably less effective against personnel targets because it doesn't fragment so easily.

(hangs anorak back on hook)

Hoon

14th July 2004, 13:55

No the current NZ issue ammo is SS109 62gr which I believe is the equivalent of the yank M855. It don't have green tips tho.

spudchucka

14th July 2004, 14:24

jrandom

14th July 2004, 14:33

No the current NZ issue ammo is SS109 62gr which I believe is the equivalent of the yank M855. It don't have green tips tho.

Is it solid jacketed lead or do they have a steel penetrator core?

jrandom

14th July 2004, 14:38

Same reason as why the military uses full metal jacket projectiles, better chance of injuring more than one person because the round is more likely to pass straight through one body into another.

I always thought it was because the Geneva Convention prohibited devices "intended to maim", etc, such as soft-nose or JHP bullets. I think the military would use expanding projectiles if the policymakers allowed them to; surely they'd rather get maximum damage from each hit than have a small extra chance of hitting more than one person.

Of course there is the factor that hollowpoint or partially unjacketed bullets would probably be more expensive to produce, and what's the average hit rate in combat these days? 0.1%?

Hoon

14th July 2004, 16:36

Is it solid jacketed lead or do they have a steel penetrator core?

No idea...they look copper from the outside. I've never taken to one with a pliers so not sure what they're made of. I'll try it out next time I get the chance :)

Drunken Monkey

14th July 2004, 16:56

I seem to recall the terminal ballistics research showing back in the 80s or thereabouts that hydrostatic shock and 'energy dumping' were myths.

Interesting. Might try and look that one up. As far as I understand human physiology though, it's not purely down to the delivery of kinetic energy, ie k = mv^2. One can deliver more kinetic energy than a bullet with a pair of nun-chukus, but I would rather take a couple of strikes from a stick on a chain than a shot in the ass.
I understood that was the reason high velocity, lightweight and hard ammunition like the 4.11mm G11 round or 5.56NATO (almost 3000ft-lbs of energy) were quite capable of penetrating steel helmets almost as well as a 7.62mm, but a single round to the torso was actually less deadly than a low velocity heavy round, like a .45ACP (less than 500ft-lbs).
The point being there's more to hurting people than ballistics tables. Plus one needs to factor in how much the round malificates, weather it shatters and causes more damage or passes straight through, etc...

And I think you might have mixed up the round designations -

Probably. I'm not the militaria freak I was when I was a teenager... They go over it briefly in the BHD book.

spudchucka

15th July 2004, 20:49

I always thought it was because the Geneva Convention prohibited devices "intended to maim", etc, such as soft-nose or JHP bullets. I think the military would use expanding projectiles if the policymakers allowed them to; surely they'd rather get maximum damage from each hit than have a small extra chance of hitting more than one person.

Of course there is the factor that hollowpoint or partially unjacketed bullets would probably be more expensive to produce, and what's the average hit rate in combat these days? 0.1%?
Correct about the Geneva Convention but as stated earlier in this thread it can have a greater impact on soldiers in battle if their collegues are being wounded rather than killed outright. A battle is effected by each wounded man requiring attention and removal from the battle, this takes resources away from the battle. For this reason FMJ rounds are preferable to hollow point rounds as they have a greater tendancy to pass through bodies, allowing them to injury subsequent bodies that get in their way, thus impacting on the enemy's resources.

Law enforcement agencies on the other hand use hollow point ammo because when firing on an offender there is a need to incapacitate the person as quickly and effectively as possible. It is also desirable for the round to stay in that person and not go on to injure any subsequent persons, hollow point ammo generaly achieves both outcomes.

SPORK

7th September 2004, 14:00

Argh!

If you want to destroy a helicopter with a $2 bullet, you want a .50 Barrett. They can take down multimillion dollar pieces of equipment from TWO kilometers away! Some guy in Iraq took down a platoon leader of some sort from 1.75 k's away with one shot. The gun is about $10,000 but if you want to take a heli down, it is far worth it.

Just my 2c in this fun thread :2guns:

geoffm

8th September 2004, 10:34

But I don't want an AR15 so I don't care...

I did have a go with an AR10 about a year ago. Very nice gun to shoot but if I had to pick, I'd still take a FAL.

Got a SLR and an original AR10. I prefer the Armalite - lighter, better ergonomics, shorter and more accurate. The SLR is well used, so that might explain the accuracy, but the damn butstock wacks me in the cheek, and is it heavy!
Geoff

scumdog

8th September 2004, 10:57

Got a SLR and an original AR10. I prefer the Armalite - lighter, better ergonomics, shorter and more accurate. The SLR is well used, so that might explain the accuracy, but the damn butstock wacks me in the cheek, and is it heavy!
Geoff

At least it's 'lefty' friendly! unlike Styer, etc - and have you ever used a Bren from the left shoulder? it's no wonder my neck plays up now and then! (a big plus with my AK is the safety is visible when it's at the firing position for us 'lefty' types, not too many rifles like that)
.
Even the autos that we lefty types CAN use have the potentially unsettling factor of empty brass whistling past the vision of our right eye - assuming everybody else shoots with both eyes open that is.

jrandom

8th September 2004, 13:35

Got a SLR and an original AR10. I prefer the Armalite - lighter, better ergonomics, shorter and more accurate. The SLR is well used, so that might explain the accuracy, but the damn butstock wacks me in the cheek, and is it heavy!
Geoff

It felt like the AR10 was more accurate, actually, but it might have just been that it was lighter and better balanced to shoot from the shoulder, rather than having less inherent spread. I didn't do any comparative shooting from a bench or prone with them.

The reason I'd pick an SLR if I had to choose would be because of my dislike of the AR's blowback system. I've never needed to chip carbon deposits off my SLR with a toothbrush and nail file.

Am I overstating things here? Should I shut up and stop listening to all the M16 bashers? Maybe an AR10 is less susceptable to jamming than a '16, the power of the .308 allowing more slop and stick in the action before it stops cycling, or summat.

In any case, I can't afford an Armalite or a Colt, so it's all moot. Sniff.

hobdar

23rd February 2005, 09:35

Very true. Does the AUG have open sights?

P.S. I've heard that NZSAS don't like the AUG, they prefer C7A1.

Yup the styer has battle sites on top of the scope, it seems to cope with the wet and dirt etc ok,

Err...I was told several things when i was in the territorials and one was that the SAS tested the styer and the c7a1 (the new m16 right) and they shot a goat (well several) and the Steyr took multiple shots to even knock down the goat and the m16 tooks a couple of shots and it was therefore their prefered choice....

Also as the Aus Defence force had the Steyr that was why we had them....

The only main complaint i had with the weapon was when changing mags, if you hit the base you often caused a jam, and it paid to knock the mag so the rounds moved to the back of the mag before loading....

Part from that it was an ok weapon, but give me a c9 or gimpy mounted to my Landrover (read mock apc) any day....

jrandom

23rd February 2005, 09:47

Err...I was told several things when i was in the territorials and one was that the SAS tested the styer and the c7a1 (the new m16 right) and they shot a goat (well several) and the Steyr took multiple shots to even knock down the goat and the m16 tooks a couple of shots and it was therefore their prefered choice....

The C7A1 is the Canadian version of the 16. And that sounds like a not-so-urban legend to me. They're shooting the same round and they have about the same barrel length. No reason at all why there would be any ballistic differences to speak of.

hobdar

23rd February 2005, 09:50

The C7A1 is the Canadian version of the 16. And that sounds like a not-so-urban legend to me. They're shooting the same round and they have about the same barrel length. No reason at all why there would be any ballistic differences to speak of.

Yup, possibly. Though if i recall correctly it was told to me by a Staff Sargent from SAS while participating on a hostage training ex for SAS.

jrandom

23rd February 2005, 10:45

Yup, possibly. Though if i recall correctly it was told to me by a Staff Sargent from SAS while participating on a hostage training ex for SAS.

Ah, right. Must be true then. An SAS noncom would NEVER exaggerate or spin bullshit. :niceone:

TwoSeven

23rd February 2005, 12:34

The XM8 (that is pictured on the HK) link is not the one that the US army will be using (its not its final variant). The one pictured seems to be missing some of its equipment rails and other bits.

There is an optics and optronics package, weapons package (for attachable 203 etc) and other bits that bolt on - the picture lacks the mounting rails (there were 4 last time I looked).

Nato has been issuing the G36 and it looks like this will be standard in most armed forces (the XM8 is actually just a G36 with a couple of bits added).

The bit about better to wound people is crap for several reasons. 1) wounded people shoot back. 2) combat soldiers are trained for shock and awe (to use a phase) so ignore wounded - hence no effect on moral. 3) its the medics job to help wounded - combat soldiers are trained will ignore them til after combat.

The reason Nato dropped heavy caliber ammo (7.6 etc) is for no other reason in that it weighs too much and soldiers cant carry as much. Also because it uses more material - it costs more to produce. Standard 5.56x45 is much better for military purposes. They still use 7.6x51 in the M60 and other heavy machine guns.

Note - that the Nato design criteria for a soldiers battlefield equipment is to reduce the overall weight they carry down to 36lbs which includes everything from the contents of the packs to the clothing worn and the new comms equipment (micro-optical and gsm technology).

The new clothing is infrared and ultraviolet proof (as well as all the other stuff), although I've only seen it in limited use in the UK at the moment. Its called multi-spectral camouflage and they even have it in paint form for vehicle application (inc aircraft).

Light sub machine guns and assault rifles are two different types of weapons - the latter is designed to shoot thru walls, buildings, light armour and combat armour, the former is designed so that it takes out unarmoured people (but stops them more effectively). Hence they fire a different type of round that has different characteristics - even tho they may be of the same caliber.

Newer nato ammo does not use the metal shell case, instead the outer part of the explosive material forms the case and burns away when fired. Its used in modern artil and tank rounds and I think it may be used in rifle ammo soon. Its correct name is combustible ordinance.

(NZ is massively out of date in equipment used, not just weaponry, but C&C and logistics stuff as well, so you cant compare what we do here with what other countries do).

jrandom

23rd February 2005, 12:48

They still use 7.6x51 in the M60 and other heavy machine guns.

Any 30-calibre MG, like the deservedly-extinct M60, is properly called 'medium'.

Fifties are 'heavy'.

Newer nato ammo does not use the metal shell case, instead the outer part of the explosive material forms the case and burns away when fired. Its used in modern artil and tank rounds and I think it may be used in rifle ammo soon. Its correct name is combustible ordinance.

Or 'caseless ammo'.

The Germans tried it for some prototype designs in WW2, I think, but couldn't solve the cost and propellant-waterproofing problems, so it never made it into the field.

hobdar

23rd February 2005, 13:06

Ah, right. Must be true then. An SAS noncom would NEVER exaggerate or spin bullshit. :niceone:

NO NO not at all not the famous SAS...0(PT)

every thing must be taken with a grain of salt specially old war stories.....he he he he.............
:Offtopic:
R u familar with the SAS escape and evasion story from Waiouru????

A bunch of officer cadets are out doing their ex phase and get told to keep an eye out for the SAS types...as they are doing their escape and evasion training....so one keen office to be type swears black and blue that he is gonna catch one of these experienced SAS types...so he pushes his men up hill and down dale....and they finally come to rest at the end of the day and the officer is standing at the top of a hill, looking around trying to find an SAS dude.....in their amazing gutchiee suits ......a couple of minutes later he hears from beneath his feet "GET OFF MY F@#KEN back"

He jumps off startled and said SAS man stands up and stomps down the hill..... to open mouth'd Officer cadet....

:Offtopic: