Neat stuff from grunts in Iraq

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by VOR
You're half right, the M2 flex was never semi-auto but it's possible to fire single shots by rotating a knob on the back of the buffer assembly which will either hold down or release the bolt as each round cycle completes. When the bolt release is held down (by a protrusion on this knob), the weapon continues to cycle while the butterfly triggers are pressed; when the bolt release is not held down, the bolt will lock open after each shot, requiring you to manually release it by pressing the release in order to chamber the next round. So to be true to definition, it isn't semi auto mode since the bolt does not complete a full firing/unlocking/extracting/ejecting/chambering cycle from shot to shot.

By the way, zeroing the sights on a 10 meter paster board prior to qualification requires the use of single-shot mode. I wouldn't wanna be the dummy on the firing line that tried to cowboy fire a single round out of the thing while it was in auto mode. It's also been my experience that rate of fire can vary alot from gun to gun.

Yup what he said.  When setting up a defense you register your fields of fire w/ the tripod locked fireing single rounds at a time to get your elevation and azmuth (I used that word wich I can't spell because you aren't adjusting the site's but the traverse on the tripod so it seemed more appropriate than windage)  It's not really semi auto but you are firing one round at a time.

[Excel1]

Originally posted by lazs2
excel..sorry.. that doesn't mean much to me.."fogging optics"?  not the guns fault... "bad magazines"  not the guns fault...melting barrels?  not on semi auto they wouldn't.. we had to go to 3 round bursts... if you aussies insist one pretnending that a 223 is an effective machine gun them simply put heavier barrels on the aug and waste ammo to your hearts content.

get better optics and mags and be happy that you have the most accurate and reliable 223 out there... or... get m16's and watch em jam up in anything but cleanrooms... and even then... if you don't stop and clean em every couple of hours.

lazs

The M16's strengths and weaknesses is not exactly unknown to the NZ army. It used the M16 in Vietnam along with the L1A1, and they remained in service up until the piece of crap Aug replaced both of those fine weapons. Next to an Aug even an old M16a1 screams reliability.

Even though the Aug is the standard service rifle the M16 is the preferred weapon of the NZ SAS (they get to choose ). They are kind of funny though, they like their weapons to work reliably enough that they don't get killed too easily.

Excel

[Eden]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yup what he said.  When setting up a defense you register your fields of fire w/ the tripod locked fireing single rounds at a time to get your elevation and azmuth (I used that word wich I can't spell because you aren't adjusting the site's but the traverse on the tripod so it seemed more appropriate than windage)  It's not really semi auto but you are firing one round at a time.

You are correct sir,

But why would you ever want to fire single shot?  

[lazs2]

excel... I will defer to your experiance... I have fired both the aug and the M16 and tore em down..  the aug seems far superior.. it seems less prone to the elements and more accurate and seems to have a better gas system...

I, Of course, am only familiar witht the civilian versions in non combat conditions... sooooo... I will defer to your experiance until someone with equal experiance says different..

What were some of the reliability problems of the aug (other than mags)?

lazs

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Eden
You are correct sir,

But why would you ever want to fire single shot?  

Good question.  Like I said we used the single shot to line up our fields of fire while setting up a deffense.  I can't find it now but I remember  seeing photos of Marines in nam mounting scopes on the M2 and useing it as a sniper type weapon.  I'm pretty sure they weren't using a scope in full auto.

[Eden]

There was a so called SUB-CALIBER device we used on our M-1 Abrams to simulate tank gunnery at machine gun ranges.  It was basically an M-2 mounted to the gun barrel (on top).  Pulling the trigger in the tank fired a single .50 cal round.  We did not have to re-charge the weapon after each round.  Must be a variation of what you used for lining up fields of fire.

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Good question.  Like I said we used the single shot to line up our fields of fire while setting up a deffense.  I can't find it now but I remember  seeing photos of Marines in nam mounting scopes on the M2 and useing it as a sniper type weapon.  I'm pretty sure they weren't using a scope in full auto.

 Hathcock was once accredited with hitting a NVA at 2,500 yards with a special scope-adapted .50 caliber machine gun converted to single shot operation.

link

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Eden
There was a so called SUB-CALIBER device we used on our M-1 Abrams to simulate tank gunnery at machine gun ranges.  It was basically an M-2 mounted to the gun barrel (on top).  Pulling the trigger in the tank fired a single .50 cal round.  We did not have to re-charge the weapon after each round.  Must be a variation of what you used for lining up fields of fire.

Eden,

Back in the "old M60" days we did that a couple of steps farther. We used a M-16 on single fire clamped to the main gun tube as  a suibcaliber device. Later the Armor school had a brain storm and got a sub caliber device to the M-16 and we fired .22 long rifle rimfires out of the m-16 for a sub sub subcaliber device shooting small plastic tanks about 2.5 inches long up to 100 yards away.

[Excel1]

Originally posted by lazs2
excel... I will defer to your experiance... I have fired both the aug and the M16 and tore em down..  the aug seems far superior.. it seems less prone to the elements and more accurate and seems to have a better gas system...

I, Of course, am only familiar witht the civilian versions in non combat conditions... sooooo... I will defer to your experiance until someone with equal experiance says different..

What were some of the reliability problems of the aug (other than mags)?

lazs

lazs, I have no first hand experience with the Aug as I have never used one. My criticism of it is based on observing the sorry saga of the numerous problems the NZ and Australian defence forces have had and continue to have with the rifle.

It's prone to over heating, which has made it necessary to substantially lower its cyclic rate.

It's water intolerant. Immersion in water or even rain can affect the gas system and render the rifle inoperable. If water or a heavy dust gets on the guide rod springs the action can become sluggish to the point where the bolt won't cycle

It's unreliable in very cold weather.

If it gets rough treatment the charge handle is prone to breaking off. If the receiver gets a heavy knock it dents, which if it happens to be the charge handle side makes it imposable to charge the rifle.

The barrel locking catch is prone to seizing - which locks the barrel into the receiver. The catch can fail and leave the barrel loose.

Problems with the unreliable safety catch have led to numerous un- authorised discharges and at least one death in the Aussie army that I'm aware of.

There is a long list of faults with the rifle stretching way back to when it was first used in NZ and Aus. Some of the problems have been fixed but it's inadequate as a service rifle and they can't fix the inherent crappiness of it. There would not be many Augs, if any, in the defence forces armoury that have not had some 'fix it up' work done to them. If the NZ army could give the Aug the flick they would, but they can't. They are stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

Incidentally, it's not only the NZ defence force that preferred the M16 to the Aug. The Aussies did too. Their trials were between the M16, Aug and I think Galil. The M16 won. But they had a requirement that the rifles had to be made in Australia under license, but Colt wouldn't play ball and provide the tooling rights.

Excel

[Eden]

Originally posted by Maverick
Eden,

Back in the "old M60" days we did that a couple of steps farther. We used a M-16 on single fire clamped to the main gun tube as  a suibcaliber device. Later the Armor school had a brain storm and got a sub caliber device to the M-16 and we fired .22 long rifle rimfires out of the m-16 for a sub sub subcaliber device shooting small plastic tanks about 2.5 inches long up to 100 yards away.

There is a thin line between ingenuity and insanity.  

It must have been an interesting thing to use and train on (I wonder who's model tanks they used?)  My mother threw mine out...I could have donated them to FT Knox.

M-60?...I saw one once...it was in a museum I think  
(Sorry couldn't resist)

[lazs2]

excel... thanks.. I did think the charging handle was kinda fragile looking..  

What I liked about the gun was that it was not a direct impingement gas system... it didn't crap where it ate like the M16/ar series.. I noticed too that the civilian version of the steyr that I seen was did not look like the NZ one.. the civilian one seemed to have a heavier barrel.. the guy told me that the gun hadn't been cleaned in over 500 rounds and we put another couple hundred through it..  all semi auto of course and in the sunshine but it was flawless and extremely accurate.   It seemed pretty well sealed from the weather... as good as the m16 but..  

lazs

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Excel1
The M16 won. But they had a requirement that the rifles had to be made in Australia under license, but Colt wouldn't play ball and provide the tooling rights.

Maybe the problem is that the Aug's built under license were built poorly - bad tooling machines or materials?

[Excel1]

Lazs, your one up on me. The Steyr built Aug's are a rare rifle here.The only one I have ever seen was in a gun shop about 15 years ago and it had a price tag on it that would rival the GDP of some small countries, which probably explains why very few were imported. The Aussie/NZ military version is not available to civilians either, you have to join-up to get one of them.
You might be right about the barrel being heavier on the Steyr than the Aus/NZ service rifle, or F88 Austeyr as it's called here. Some modifications were done to the Austeyr mostly to fix problems with the rifle which means it's not identical to the Steyr built Augs. As well as the standard 20" rifle barrel, a 24" heavy barrel ,a 16" carbine barrel and a 14' commando barrel can be interchanged to provide a very versatile weapons system. I'm not totally against the rifle it's got some strong points but the reality is it hasn't lived up to expectations as a service rifle.

Excel

[Excel1]

Fishu, Some people have claimed that the Australian built Augs are not up to the same standard of quality as the Steyr built Augs. On the other hand a NZ defence force mouthpiece once stated that there was no differance in peformance or reliability between the Australian and Austrian built Rifles and that they were just having a few teething problems with it , which at the time I thought sounded dubious.

Excel

[Masherbrum]

My shooting buddy is Army (83-89) E-5.  Army National Guard (1999-2000) E-5.  A couple of years back he joined the National Guard.  His unit was selected to attend a NATO gathering in Evjemoen, Norway.  

While there he participated in a shoot with Uzbakistani's, Finn's, German's and a couple of other countries.

His findings:

1.) The Finns had the overall best rifle.  The AK-47 firing LaPua ammo.  He owns a Bulgarian AK and he still says:  "You absolutely CANNOT compare the two."  "The Finns made the right choice by choosing to go with high-quality ammo, for an already reliable weapon".  He had no problem accurately shooting targets at 500m.  He shot Expert at 39-40 years old for his two years stint.   He felt this weapon with this ammo, was just as good as an M-16A2 or the M-16M203 (he carried the 203).

2.)  The German's had the HK G3A3.   He loved this weapon as well and stated that in full-auto it was a breeze to get all rounds in a good group, as long as you "leaned into it".   Again, he felt this weapon just as good as his own.

Now, when it comes to pistols, the 9mm is an inferior round all together.  It's bad enough the round needs to be mushroomed to have the best effect.  But the military uses ball ammo.  I'm glad they are reverting back to the .45 round.  

I've heard many good things and bad things concerning the M16.  My buddy says "He'd choose the M16A2 anyday over the AK, except the Finnish version".  

Karaya