Latest Military Tech

[Drunken Monkey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, sorry.

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.

[jrandom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[geoffm]

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]

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]

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]

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....