Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bj229r on November 11, 2005, 07:14:34 PM
-
Got this from another bbs I frequent--this is from 3 posts this gent made today:
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 1776
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:12 pm Post subject: Iraq Sit Rep, Our Weapons... Reply with quote Back to top
I recently received an email from a friend of mine, a retired USMC First Shirt. His son is an E-5 NCO Grunt in the Corps, just returned from year in Iraq, recently re-upped for a burst of six and will be returning to Iraq at the first of next year. What follows is a portion of the "debriefing" he gave his father. It's lengthy, I realize, but much good stuff.
1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the
talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan
says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4
carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it
has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various
optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the
weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor
penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even
torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact:
Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.
2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light
machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of sh--.
Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly.
(that's fun in the middle of a firefight).
3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns
for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm:
Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.
4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for
clearing houses to good effect.
5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun,
developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!).
Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down.
Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are
being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round
chews up the structure over there.
6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce"
is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight
stopper, puts their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted
weapon in-theater.
7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there.
Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on
one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put 'em down with
a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol
work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old
government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.
Cool The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a
modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight
Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in
the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.
9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range
and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out
vehicle suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded
enemy. Definitely here to stay.
10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300
win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance. Snipers
have been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine
sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos
Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.
NEXT POST:
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 1776
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:25 pm Post subject: Iraq Sit Rep THEIR troops Reply with quote Back to top
As mentioned in other threads, this info via USMC Grunt just returned from seeing heavy fighting in Iraq.
Their troops and tactics...
Who are the bad guys?:
Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They
operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are
mostly "foreigners", non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the
Muslim world (and Europe). Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of
course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian govt.) , and then
travel down the "rat line" which is the trail of towns along the
Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months.
Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as
suicide bombers or in "sacrifice squads". Most, however, are hard core
terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.)
These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and
cutting heads off. The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are
supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. (they have been
fighting the Russians for years). In the Baghdad area and south, most
of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and led) Iraqi *****es. The
Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local
govt.'s, the police forces and the Army. The have had a massive spy and
agitator
network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80's. Most of the
Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.
Bad Guy Tactics:
When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their tulips kicked
every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges were very
common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally
sacrifice 8-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and
firing Ak's and RPG's directly at our bases just to probe the defenses.
They get mowed down like grass every time. ( see the M2 and M240
above). Jordan's base was hit like this often. When engaged, they have
a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think
will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the
end of that more often than not. These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha
Whiskey Romeo's (Allah's Waiting Room). We have the laser guided
ground-air thing down to a science. The fast mover's, mostly Marine
F-18's, are taking an ever increasing toll on the enemy. When caught
out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut
them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night.
Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all. Fun fact: The enemy
death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That is why we're
seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide bomber sh--.
The new strategy is simple: attrition.
The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian
non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian
casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and (especially) Mosques are
locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and
flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for
civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without
hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new
Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is
common to influence people they are trying to influence but cant reach,
such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.).
The first thing our guys are told is "don't get captured". They know
that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the internet.
Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American
serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give
a sh-- about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually
kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our
guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.
The Iraqi's are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a
sh--. Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but
they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of
suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious
tactical mistake. Many Iraqi's were galvanized and the caliber of
recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their
motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intel
because the Iraqi's are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians.
The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.
-
Never understood the move away from heavier .308 calibre weapons. From what I've heard of in reports from Vietnam and even the Falklands the bigger rounds always showed their effectiveness.
One of my old man's mates used to field one of these in Vietnam and always reckoned the yanks were jealous of its one-shot-one-kill capability:
(http://www.african-hunter.com/fnslr_p02p32v5no3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Never understood the move away from heavier .308 calibre weapons. From what I've heard of in reports from Vietnam and even the Falklands the bigger rounds always showed their effectiveness.
One of my old man's mates used to field one of these in Vietnam and always reckoned the yanks were jealous of its one-shot-one-kill capability:
(http://www.african-hunter.com/fnslr_p02p32v5no3.jpg)
After he bent his barrel shooting an M-16 from the cab of a truck bouncing down a road, my Dad carried an M-14 that he bartered from a marine. Said it was the reason he is alive today. Twice his unit was close to being over run, and once it was. He stayed alive by playing dead. Still has the stick marks and tongue scar to prove it. 12 guys lived the last attack. Sadly, he was an airman, and never should have seen that combat. A good friend of his, an American SF man, who is featured in the book All We Had (may be the wrong name), had the same thing (only worse) happen to him because of the M-16 problems. The SF guy (name withheld) said his unit carried Ak's and M-14's after that.
-
i bought 3 m-14's from our ARVN Lt. (i kept losing them playing poker) I also had 2 .45's.. those were with me every second. I despised the mattel toy gun. still do.
-
The 2 Delta guys who volunteered for likely death in Somalia (one was Shugart, can't remember the other brave soul's name) both used Vietnam era M14's, for the previous-mentioned reasons.(Wasn't specifically touched on in the movie, but WAS in the book) They sent a lot of folks to A.W.R. ('Allah's Waiting Room'):aok
-
Yup the M16 in a normal field environment is a mait. hog. YOu have to clean the suckers all the damn time. I can't imagine what it's like with one in the desert.
-
Outstanding read thanks very much.
I saved it in case a mod gets over zealous.
I agree with the assessments of the weapons. Designers have to realize that light weight isn't the ONLY desirable trait in a weapon and it's ammo. Frankly Kalishnikov understood that and made a weapon with decent performance. No it will not win a rifle match. That's not it's design intent. It won't knock down a building either but it WILL penetrate far better than a 5.56 round will. The impact is also better than the smaller lighter projectile. Even in open terain the vast majority of rifle fire takes place under 300 yards. Past that the MG is king for laying down fire and covering a beaten zone.
The M14 is a great weapon. I think (IMO) it needs to be reworked just a bit. Shorten the barrel, add a better pistol style grip to it. Make it as light as possible. Curve the magazines a bit and add an optical sight option like the m-4. Maybe add a 2 round burst option but no more due to recoil climb. It would even be superior to the M=4 / M-16 if it used the AK round. That would save some on weight as well.
In the real world, the shorter a weapon is the better suited it is for urban style combat. Police learned a while ago that a long weapon is a liability in close combat or when you have to put hands on the suspect. It takes 2 hands to effectively use a rifle or shotgun and when you have to secure a bad guy what are you going to do with the long gun? This is bad for close combat, hence the desire for handguns. I think if they can get some high cap mag .45's the troopies will feel better than with a 7 round mag. The 9mm is an "ok" round ONLY with hollow points. Not an option in the military. When you are stuck with ball, bigger and heavier is better.
-
Err, I actually hate pistol grips. With a passion.
The stock I love most out of all my guns is a straight 1903 Remington stock.
-
2 things. One.. tactical sling. Solves the hands free issue. Second, the entire 5.56mm philosphy is flawed. Badly flawed.
Would be no trouble at all to rebuild the M14 or FN into a decent modern combat rifle... or we could just adopt the AK-74M; a superior weapon to the mattel POS in every way that matters.
-
Two round burst would be useless. 3 is the absolute minimum.
You could give most m14's a 3 round burst, then give the biggest guy in the squad a Fully Auto m14...
Of course then you'd have to bulk the gun up, because everyone remembers what happened last time they tried it.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
2 things. One.. tactical sling. Solves the hands free issue. Second, the entire 5.56mm philosphy is flawed. Badly flawed.
Would be no trouble at all to rebuild the M14 or FN into a decent modern combat rifle... or we could just adopt the AK-74M; a superior weapon to the mattel POS in every way that matters.
I disagree, and own several Ar's,one legal Ak-47, one legal Car, and one legal Car converted to 7.62.
The Car is better hands down.
To convert an M14 to todays specs will be a job.
Just convert the Car to 7.62, issue .45 side arms, problem solved.
-
Why have burst at all. Make them auto and semi. Burst is highly in accurate in the M16 and I couldn't imagine that it would be of any use on a 14.
In addition history has proven time and time again that marksmenship reigns over everything on a regular battlefield. It's not as important in an urban fight but I wouldn't limit ourselves with an AK type 300 meter weapon, that would hurt if we ever faced an enemy on an open battlefield wich we will. M14 w/ Iron sites is accurate up to 800 meters on point targer correct?
-
Yes.
I'm just stipulating about the Auto stuff. Don't take anything I say about auto as gospel...
I really didn't know that 3 round burst is inaccuratte. Any reason why?
-
Look in my hands and see the choice of weapons I made (my other options were M-16 and M-9)
(http://[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/5040/34sd7zd.jpg)[/URL][/IMG]
Although in all honesty the M-16 was more for the crew. It was this over my 9mm.
This AK had been through alot before I got my hands on it. I picked it up and shook the dirt off and it fired just fine. Kept it until we found a chache of new MP-5s in mummy wrap. Easy choice of which one to picke there.
-
Thanks for posting that, what a good read.
I'm going to part from the discussion of the weapons though, because what I thought was most interesting was the description of who we are fighting and how the war is going.
This guy says that we are basically fighting foriegn fighters, and are MOWING them down as fast as they can flood in. He says he heard 45-50 k of them killed?
He also says something I find very interesting: That the Iraqis are getting pretty pissed at Zarqawi bs.
Seems like the people who have been saying that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq rather than having to deal with them elswhere have been correct.
"Bring them on" seems to have been a good thing to say, and accurate. We are in a war with people who hate us and want to kill us, and they seem to be flooding in, ready to take the next available seat in Allah's waiting room"
-
Better to fight in their neighborhood then ours.
-
Kinda funny that our guys would be better off with WWII era weapons...
M1 Garand (M14 is poor copy) 45 auto (9 rounds is plenty and double action is not needed) model 97 or model 12 winchester pump 12 guage or mossberg in riot configuration (super dependable and perfect for room to room stuff) and.... the m3 grease gun or thompson in 45 acp... grease gun is probly better but the thompson is just so darn friggin cool.. BAR would not be too bad either but the crappy m60 would be ok. and of course.... the timeless genius of another of mr Brownings gems... ma duece.
The m16 and varients.. they ***** where they eat. Never a good idea and....The rounds are designed to break at the cannalure making penetration impossible and wounds either minute or spectacular. You can't use the thing as a club either.
The berreta 9mm... the unholy of unholies worthless round in ball ammo... the stupid pistol is suited only for looks on the belt of an MP or something.. real shame to replace something as good as the 1911 with this toy. I would rather have a target 22 pistol like a High Standard and go for head shots..
Just shot the M1 Garand today and a 1911 clone (Kimber).. you really have to shoot good ones to realize just how good these weapons are.
course... I would want a cut down Ruger redhawk revolver in 44 mag and full moon clips or even a Smith custom shop 8 shooter .357 but thats just me... I wouldn't feel bad with a good .45
lazs
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I disagree, and own several Ar's,one legal Ak-47, one legal Car, and one legal Car converted to 7.62.
The Car is better hands down.
To convert an M14 to todays specs will be a job.
Just convert the Car to 7.62, issue .45 side arms, problem solved.
Take the Car and the AK.. toss 'em both in a mud puddle. Fall on top of 'em. Squirm a round a little. Get up and kick 'em outta the mud puddle into some dirt and sand. Pick 'em up, charge the weapons, and shoot.
Now, tell me again... which is superior? ;)
I'll give yah this tho... I'd take that 7.62 Car over the mattel .223 POS any day of the week.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I disagree, and own several Ar's,one legal Ak-47, one legal Car, and one legal Car converted to 7.62.
The Car is better hands down.
To convert an M14 to todays specs will be a job.
Just convert the Car to 7.62, issue .45 side arms, problem solved.
Seems like this is what you guys are talking about. Lots of these mods for M14s now I think.
Just got a Springfield Armory M1A for myself but the short barrel SOCOM etc is what they are pushing.
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-socom-ii.shtml
-
gads.. the prices! ARRGH!
I've got a M1 'metal only' set coming from CMP. Friend of mines got a nice stock and a pile of parts. He's also got a 5 station turrent reloader. I'm gonna have a fun winter building an outstanding rifle and making kick bellybutton ammo.
-
cops came up to me tuesday... young firearms instructor.. Big grin and says "guess what we are shooting?" dunno I say (the got a bunch of mp5's and m16's from the military)..
"ever hear of a M1 Garand" he says... I told him I owned one and asked where he got one... guess one of the cops dad died and left it to him with a bunch of ammo.. they were out shooting the crap out of it and having a ball... "this frigging thing is unreal... punches holes right through the metal sillouette targets we made for our M16's" says he.. "accurate as hell and ded reliable with crusty old 1960's ammo in rusty clips" He really did look awed that a 60 year old battle rifle could perform so well today.
yep... told him you sissies better be careful hiding behind car doors and little trees when you are ninja'd out and carrying your mattel guns against some guy who knows how to work a Garand.. He lost a little color and agreed.
Won't be long before the girly men socialists are seeking bans on hunting rifle calibers.
lazs
-
I specified 2 round burst because of the recoil issue. More than 2 rounds in 7.62 nato (.308) is really wasted as it is no where near on target. Secondary issue is for ability to lay down fire and still maintain some fire discipline. When it comes down to it you can supress fire with a garand if you are facing bolt action rifles. It is much harder against something like the AK's with their largert ammo capacity and cyclic rate over time. The M-14 means more rounds per loading and you can top up the mag in a M-14 unlike the Garand. Ammo in the larger rifles (like the M-1 or M-14) is heavier and takes up more space. Don't get me wrong, I love the garand and it is my favorite battle rifle to shoot. I just don't think it's a better choice over the M-14.
Laz, having put more than a few rounds through the grease gun, I have to agree it's a better battle weapon than the Thompson. The .45 has no penetration however for shooting into walls for barricaded enemy.
As to the tactical sling, it is a 2 way street. If your back is not totally secure you are giving someone a weapon and or a neat handle to use against you. It's a decent compromise but for real close contact where you will have to "lay hands" on someone a pistol is a better choice. You can holster it one handed and get the job done.
I like a pistol grip on a short rifle as it allows you to fire one handed easier than a straight stock. It also allows for better leverage in handling the weapon.
-
I'm just not much of a fan of 'pistol grips'.. prolly because big bore rifles with pistol grips are as useless as tits on bulls. ;) Medium cased rifles like the AK are pretty much just noisemkers in auto mode fired single handed from the pistol grip... but can be fired very well from a sling in spray 'n pray mode. I don't know of any big bore short barreled combat rifles that can be fired accurately single handedly.
I guess my objection swings on 'aimed fire' vs 'supressive fire'.. and that's all about training troops real aimed fire rifle skills in addition to the Fire and Manuver tactics that favor unaimed massive fire volume. Since our current squad weapons selections favor lotsa lil bullets flying all over the place, medium range heavy caliber precision fire weapons and skills have pretty much dissapeared from modern US combat units.
Squirt n' scoot (fire and manuver) tends to require a lot more little rifles spraying little bullets to obtain the desired end results. ;)
-
I read Col. David Hackworth's autobiography some time back ("Steel My Soldiers' Hearts) I'm sure if that man told me to charge a machine gun nest with a Bowie knife, I'd have done it. Anyhow, when trying to explain to a reporter or something what we were facing in Vietnam, he motioned over to a rifle butt sticking out of the dried mud (this had been the site of a battle some months before) pulled out an AK47 from the earth, shook most of the dirt off, squeezed the trigger, and proceeded to fire the remainder of its clip. Don't think tightly-engineered M16 ever do that
-
I love my Mossberg 12 gauge pump with slugs...
Leaves nice holes.
:D
Mac
-
Our military recently announced that they are keeping the G3 rifles for the majority of the army and national guard troops. They are modifying it with "rails" for optical sights and other stuff. The new assaultrifles that we are getting for the rest of the military will be either a variant of the Diemaco C8 or G36 or prolly a mix of both. These are/will be used by special forces and those that need smaller/lighter weapons like those riding around in APC's.
The G3 (or AG3 as our version is called) is a fantastic weapon. Very reliable and uses the 7.62 round that gives it range and stopping power. Works in the dirt and cold too without jamming. Only bad thing really is that it takes a while to train yourself into taking it apart and putting it back together in the dark etc... the thing has over 100 parts!! Its also heavy so you cant walk around with the same ammount of ammo as you can with the G36/C8.
Modified AG3 at work in Kabul
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00066/Modifisert_AG-3_66902a.jpg)
-
Besides it's always better to have a nice trained guard dog!
(http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1236/ugliestdog0mm.jpg)
Holy Chit, Sam is a good lap dog.
(http://samugliestdog.com/IW4C0045-CROPPED-copy-web.jpg)
Gettin into the Christmas Spirit.
(http://samugliestdog.com/DSC01898web.jpg)
(http://samugliestdog.com/Sam162edited.jpg)
Hugs!
:( :confused: :huh
-
Originally posted by Eden
Look in my hands and see the choice of weapons I made (my other options were M-16 and M-9)
(http://[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/5040/34sd7zd.jpg)[/URL][/IMG]
Although in all honesty the M-16 was more for the crew. It was this over my 9mm.
This AK had been through alot before I got my hands on it. I picked it up and shook the dirt off and it fired just fine. Kept it until we found a chache of new MP-5s in mummy wrap. Easy choice of which one to picke there.
I were just looking for picture like this, to show how big technological supperiority US have ;)
-
I agree that it is sort of interesting to see some of the old "tryed and true" weapons still regain their awesome status over some of the high tech stuff.
The Garand was, is and will remain a totaly awesome piece of work in the firearms world.
My Dad praised the B.A.R. regularly. He latched on to one in WWII and never let go. He credited this weapon to the saving of his own life and many others repeatedly in conversations about his experiences.
-
Lada, you muck-raked ****, have a look at the guy in the picture. He and his squaddies killed the rag-headed POS that had that AK. The most dangerous weapon in the field is a determined well trained soldier. A determined well trained soldier will adapt to the enemys weapons and when or where they are deemed superior to his own he will utilize them.
Jackal, I hardly recognize todays platoon and squad weapons... My M-14, BAR, M-60, LAW.. all gone. Even the helmet, uniform, boots, pack, webgear... all changed. In their place are sophisticated weapons to be sure.. but not necessarily better weapons in the field. Seems like every time our kids get into combat, the stuff that hits hard; fast and dependably is ressurected for service. Hell even when I served there was a guy on our security detail carrying a 1903 Springfield with a scope. Go figure. ;)
-
mav.. just a difference of opinion and a slight one at that... nothing wrong with the m14... just a cheapened version of the Garand... the Garand has a better gas piston placement so is more accurate... the 8 round clips are less than half the firepower but.... they weigh nothing (u can pack a lot more) and... they eject themselves... you save a step... biggest problem with em is... no way to top em... you either shoot all of the clip or have less ammo in the rifle or... eject the whole mess and play 1-7 round pick up. M14 is fine tho.
45-50 thousand extremeists sent to alah? sounds like I was right.. lets just make iraq a killing ground for em..After all...
the muslim religion is a religion of peace... they got to be running out of extremists pretty soon right?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lada
I were just looking for picture like this, to show how big technological supperiority US have ;)
A lot of people make different choices. Your comment in the face of observable fact is yet more evidence of humanity's stupidity.
-
I did some work at VMI recently, got to go into armory...like HUNDREDS of M14's...pretty cool:aok
-
I would just like to say that you CAN top off the garand. You can only top it off to 7 though.
Common misconception.
-
watch yer thumb! ;)
-
I've never ever had either of my garands close on my thumb.
-
I did. I was the klutz poster boy. :)
-
clip holds 8... if you retract the bolt you eject the round in the chamber. If you only shoot 1 round You can't top it off and.. what would be the point? Just eject the whole mess and insert another clip of 8
lazs
-
Originally posted by lada
I were just looking for picture like this, to show how big technological supperiority US have ;)
The AK was made in Yugoslavia. Ammunition in Arabia.
Bullet holes from the weapon visible on the front of the turret (just above left shoulder). US won.
-
Dumped the AK and picked up an MP-5 when we got some. Had to dismount more than I would have liked. Needed something with a little more range than the 9mm (also, wanted to see what the AK could do... reliable but no accuracy - reminded me of a M-3 grease gun)
-
How about this picture:
(http://[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3259/t727jr.jpg)[/URL][/IMG]
Try and find a snapshot of a captured M-1...
This was the only T-72 we could get close enough to get a picture of. The other ones were still burning. Crew from this one decided not to play anymore and fled.
-
I'm just saying Lazs, that it's a common misconception that you can't top off the garand. I routinely go from 2-3 rounds up to 7 in the bloc.
The 8th is a ***** to get in even when the clip is out of the gun.
-
Why dont we use MG3s instead of m240s?
-
Originally posted by Eden
Try and find a snapshot of a captured M-1...
I didn't know they made M-1s in Poland ;)
I saw enough burining M-1s on some Arabian sat TV during the invasion, was funny when I posted it here and people started screaming about "communist lies", only until about 1/10th of what I saw was shown on Western TV...
Originally posted by Eden
This was the only T-72 we could get close enough to get a picture of. The other ones were still burning. Crew from this one decided not to play anymore and fled.
Miko2d made a good post here about T-72 abilities back in 2003. He served as a gunner in Belorussia in mid-80s. As far as i remember he said he could hit targets at the speed of the reloading automat. It's the man, not the machine, and it's not the man, but recon and communication.
Off-topic: I am reading a book about Russo-Japanese war now, first time I try to dig into ground warfare history 1904-1905 (naval part of the book is quite primitive, I knew more then I read there), and it's making me sick. Russians had numerical and technical superiority, but the lack of motivation and initiative led to a catastrophe... Reading about battle of Liaoyang now, a good read about "how not to wage wars" :( The biggest battle in human history before WWI...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I didn't know they made M-1s in Poland ;)
I saw enough burining M-1s on some Arabian sat TV during the invasion, was funny when I posted it here and people started screaming about "communist lies", only until about 1/10th of what I saw was shown on Western TV...
I don't rememer anyone calling "communist lies" or even anyone who didn't see burning M1s on the news
That reminds me of the time US forces entered the center of Baghdad, and you didn't believe it, saying that the Russian reporters couldn't find any of them :D
And Boroda, if you were able to see something on SAT tv, then I'm sure people here saw the same things. Contrary to popular belief, the US does not only have CNN and FOX news.
-
i'm sure if M-1 tanks were burning CNN would have let us know, every 15 min. along with a updated body count.
-
Originally posted by lada
I were just looking for picture like this, to show how big technological supperiority US have ;)
Notice the rag, center picture, under the tank?
Thats superiority dude ;)
-
Lada, if we were 600 meters away from eachother, you had an AK, and I had an M-16A2.....I garundamtee ya you'd be dead before me.
You wan't superior firepower......notice the 2 mounted MGs above him to the left and right.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Lada, if we were 600 meters away from eachother, you had an AK, and I had an M-16A2.....I garundamtee ya you'd be dead before me.
Aren’t you a gentleman! ;) What’s next, an infant baby holding an AK while you compare superiority of your rifle? Why not just drop few JDAMS….then glow about superior M16. ;)
(BTW, it’s standard practice to have at least 2 snipers with SVD for those distances)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Lada, if we were 600 meters away from eachother, you had an AK, and I had an M-16A2.....I garundamtee ya you'd be dead before me.
You wan't superior firepower......notice the 2 mounted MGs above him to the left and right.
600m.. that's a long, long way... 50m beyond the published effective range for that weapon. The AK's effective range is 400m. Of course, with the two weapons specified, at that range, the M16A2 would be the preferred pick.. however If I had a Garand or an M-14, or for that matter a Springfield, you'd both be dead. ;)
Perhaps the better picks for that standoff range contest would be the Dragunov SVD vs the M40A3. I think the Dragunov's 30 rounds a minute vs the M40's bolt action could be a telling advantage...
Face it.. the commies went a different way in the 60's with squad level weapon development. They do have some very good combat weapons.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
600m.. that's a long, long way... 50m beyond the published effective range for that weapon. The AK's effective range is 400m. Of course, with the two weapons specified, at that range, the M16A2 would be the preferred pick.. however If I had a Garand or an M-14, or for that matter a Springfield, you'd both be dead. ;)
Perhaps the better picks for that standoff range contest would be the Dragunov SVD vs the M40A3. I think the Dragunov's 30 rounds a minute vs the M40's bolt action could be a telling advantage...
Face it.. the commies went a different way in the 60's with squad level weapon development. They do have some very good combat weapons.
I've shot the M-16 at 500 and 600 meters and it's plenty accurate. The effective range on a POINT target is 550m and on an AREA target is 800m. I'm not a huge fan of the 16 but it does have plenty of advantages over the AK and likewise the AK is a more reliable weapon. Whenever I hear of trading accuracy for reliability I'm allways reminded of the battle of BELLEAU WOOD during WWI.
-
Can't disagree.. can make a few more points tho. The 'punch' of a weapon is a big, big issue.. while the .223 (5.56x45) has an accuracy and range edge over the 7.62x39 round, at the ranges these weapons are commonly relied upon to do the work of combat (50-300 yards), the 7.62x39 has a distinct advantage in whallop and penetration.
At 600 yards the M-16's round has 1/5th the punch of a M-14's 7.62x51. 1/5th! Dude, that's a heluva lot less penetrating killin power.
You need to spend a coupla days playin with one of these.. you'll never look at an M-16 the same way again.
(http://www.warland.info/IMG/jpg/m14a1.jpg)
Caliber: 7.62x51 mm NATO (.308 Winchester)
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Length: 1120 mm
Barrel Length: 559 mm
Weight loaded: 5,1 kg (6.6 kg M14A1)
Magazine: 20 rounds, detachable box
Rate of fire: 700 -750 rounds per minute
Effective Range: 1200m
"Standard sights consist of the blade front sight with two protective "ears" and diopter-type adjustable rear sight, mounted on the rear of the receiver. Barrel is equipped with long flash suppressor. To be used in selective fire mode, M14 can be equipped with light detachable bipod. The M14A1 Squad Automatic rifle differs from M14 in the following: the fire selector is always installed. The standard wooden single-piece stock with semi-pistol grip is replaced by the "straight line" wooden stock with separate pistol grip and with folding front grip under the forearm. The hinged shoulder rest is attached to the buttplate. Special removable muzzle jump compensator is fitted to the barrel, as well as lightweight bipod. "
Sometimes, older is just a heluva lot better. ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I've shot the M-16 at 500 and 600 meters and it's plenty accurate. The effective range on a POINT target is 550m and on an AREA target is 800m. I'm not a huge fan of the 16 but it does have plenty of advantages over the AK and likewise the AK is a more reliable weapon. Whenever I hear of trading accuracy for reliability I'm allways reminded of the battle of BELLEAU WOOD during WWI.
Better in the open, but far worse in the woods.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Better in the open, but far worse in the woods.
Yes in the woods range means very little.
Hang,
I'm not at all saying I like the M16 as the perfect weapon and I would love to see the military get the M14 back. My problem is when I hear that the AK is sooooo much better when it is no were as near accurate. The M16 has reliability problems but it does work if you clean it.....every totally tubular day. Eitherway on a stand off with somone that has an AK you are more accurate and can kill him before he can kill you. That goes along way when it comes to a rifleman that's been taught marksmenship. I fear getting a weapon like an AK that any nutjob can send a 1000 rounds down range in no time at all. The problem with that is you get away from actually teaching somone the basic fundamentals of marksmanship.
-
you guys saying accuracy does not matter because its short range are overlooking the obvious. Real combat shooting is not pop up targets. It's a head here, legs sticking out there... lots of small targets for short duration. Being able to place quick, accurate shots with rapid follow up shots are an area where the m16 family easily outclasses the AK series.
-
Hiya Rabbit..
Little story here.. coupla young men with real nice CAR 15's, all tricked out SOG style with scopes and lasers were shooting on the 200 yard range a few weeks back. I was plinking away with my Finn M-39.. a 106 year old bolt action antique. We chatted a bit, seemed like nice kids, outta some military school. They showed me theirs and I showed 'em mine.
Came time to go out and pull butts, and I checked their targets.. very accurate shooters those kids were. The old Finn did pretty good.. but not a good as those scoped CAR's.
We got back to the line for the next round of shooting and I pulled out my 'Chinaman' towards the end of the round.. a lil SKS Paratrooper, no scope. When they called the line to empty their magazines, I popped off 10 rounds, aimed rapid fire at their targets... 5 rounds each, right into the legs. The targets flopped on their backs, one after the other.
The AK is known to be a MORE accurate shooter than an SKS.. however any big bore weapon in auto mode is off the mark on the second shot. In single shot mode they are both fine shooters in their range parameters. Don't buy into the propaganda.. a rifleman is a rifleman, and when it comes time to deliver aimed accurate fire, the slug with punch is the 'money shooter'.
I let the kids play with the Chinaman and the Russian, I played with their CAR's. We had a great time, they learned something; might save their lives some day... big slugs penetrate; wreak havoc.. little slugs; not so much. If nothin else, they learned a bit of respect for the rifles the other side will be carrying... and what to use (and not to use) for cover if facing one. ;)
Yep, like Guns said.. training is the key.. and when the other side has good well trained shooters, their AK's and Dragunov's will make 'em mighty damn deadly adversaries.
-
I see a lot of verbage here about the relative accuracy of the 16, CAR and the AK. When it comes down to it the weapon that can be counted on to actually FIRE when needed will be the one prized by those going in harms way. As to the relative accuracy, there are folks who can make an accurate shooter based on the round the AK uses.
I think most of us would rather have a heavier round with better penetration than the 5.56. The accuracy of the weapon at extreme range is often far better than the shooter, especially when that shooter is under fire. Looking for the occasional 500 meter shot and claiming that is the critical one is falacious IMO. There are better choices than the standard rifle for ranges like that. If it's a single or small group then the sniper is by far the best option. For larger targets it's artillery and MG.s for coverage.
In any event the majority of action that is being seen is an urban combat situation. Accuracy beyond 100 meters isn't an issue in this case. Punching through a wall, door or other type of cover is along with a sufficient volume of fire to supress return fire is important.
-
Yup. :aok
-
It seems to be common consensus, and I agree, that the 5.56 round is not as hard hitting as one would like. My point being a 1 MOA rifle is going to make a 150M 4 inch shot better than a 3-5 MOA rifle. Obviously training and experience make all the difference too. The 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 round both deliver similar energy to the target however the 7.62x39 is better at transfering the energy.
-
I like my 1954 Russian SKS. I can hit stuff pretty well with it, and the ammo is cheap.
-
In these types of discussion's I'm allways reminded of the battle of bellaue wood during WWI. This is the battle that the US Marines earned their nick name's "Devil Dog" You see the German's were setting up for an advance and the Marines were digging in. The Marines were well out of the range for the German's when they started but the Germans were well within range for the Marines. While the Germans were gathering up they were getting plinked off easily by standard Marine Rifleman who knew marksmenship. The German advance didn't stand a chance and they could not accuratly return fire.
I'd rather have a 7.62 infantry rifle but in non-urban warfare if it were a choice between the M16 and the AK I'd take the 16 every time, even if I had to clean the hell out of it. Bringing back the M14 as a standard infantry rifle sounds like a good Idea, although I havn't heard much lately on the new XM-8.
-
Ive never seen an ak-47 with a scope on it, then again what do I know.
-
A very interesting thread.
My understanding of the reason that the US army dropped the M14 in favour of the M16 is because in the age of select fire assault weapons the M14 was a turkey: it was too big, and by not having a straight line stock or buffer made it uncontrollable for most users on full auto. Plus the 7.62 cartridge was considered to be too big for a select fire rifle anyhow.
Imo the .223/5.56 round is too small for military use and the M16 should have been chambered for a bigger round, but Armalite stuffed things up to begin with by designing the AR15 to use a varmint round- the .222rem, which was too underpowered to use in a military rifle. The .223/5.56 was a compromise that avoided them having to stretch the action of the rifle to get a larger cartridge to fit.
As for the penetrating abilities of 5.56x45 ball ammo it depends on which ball ammo you refer too; the Vietnam era M193 ball or the current NATO SS109/M855 ball. They are as different as chalk and cheese. Lazs gave a good description of M193 ball, the thin jacketed little pill fragments on targets at close range causing messy wounds out of proportion to its size. At longer range when the projectile's velocity falls below a certain point it holds together to become a puny .22cal body piercer. NATO SS109 on the other hand is armour piercing. It has a steel insert in its lead core and was designed to defeat body armour. It doesn't fragment...it's a puny .22cal body piercer from the moment it leaves the muzzle.
I checked out the armour piercing abilities of SS109 ball with a Colt carbine just to satisfy my own curiosity. I dragged a 3'x3' 3/8ths (10mm) thick mild steel plate out into a paddock and shot the crap out of it of from 50 yards. Every round punched a hole in the plate, and although it looked like most of the lead cores fused to the plate I wouldn't like to be behind anything less than 3/4 - 1" of steel if I was on the wrong end of an SS109 loaded weapon at close range.
Excel
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
A lot of people make different choices. Your comment in the face of observable fact is yet more evidence of humanity's stupidity.
yeah here we go, some soldier post article about "traditional" weapons and he describe them as "all the time jammed POS, because of the send", then we have soldier here, who post his picture with AK and confirm that there is a real poing about first post and of course im LFUKBGVRSLAB&*P#BV#&OQB$%Q#&*P when i point on the same thing and thanks to him for the picture....
yeah ... realy plenty of stupidity around.... i agree.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Lada, if we were 600 meters away from eachother, you had an AK, and I had an M-16A2.....I garundamtee ya you'd be dead before me.
Ok... If you dont mind, that i pick Ak-10x or Vzor-58
-
Originally posted by joowenn
Ive never seen an ak-47 with a scope on it, then again what do I know.
LOL another expert who belive, that AK-47 is latest model .. come on... try google, you will find plenty of AKs with scoops, knifes, lights and so on
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Notice the rag, center picture, under the tank?
Thats superiority dude ;)
ummm .. that white rag seems to be.... "something sharp has fallen on my picture.. damm it" ?
And i also noted, that half of the tank is in fire and soldier is ok... or is it just a rest of the drink ? :D
-
Originally posted by lada
ummm .. that white rag seems to be.... "something sharp has fallen on my picture.. damm it" ?
And i also noted, that half of the tank is in fire and soldier is ok... or is it just a rest of the drink ? :D
Nice try lada, but a no cigar. You'll never make the kgb with that sort of attempt ;)
-
I think we will all admit that the russian weapons are more reliable with less maintenance and... far less accurate. Most soldiers aren't well trained marksmen and soviet troops got even less practic than most so the weapon worked well for them and countless "insurgents" around the globe with little firearms background or experiance. those guys would have nothing but junk to show if they had m16's
The 223 is very very erratic in it's ability to stop or kill... the soviet 7.62 x 39 is dependably mediocre in that respect.
The m14 was dropped for a number of reasons.. it was a bad idea to make it full auto anyway. It is an excellent weapon in semi auto and would get the job done better than the m16 or ak. It is a better weapon than the FN's and such too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
In these types of discussion's I'm allways reminded of the battle of bellaue wood during WWI. This is the battle that the US Marines earned their nick name's "Devil Dog" You see the German's were setting up for an advance and the Marines were digging in. The Marines were well out of the range for the German's when they started but the Germans were well within range for the Marines. While the Germans were gathering up they were getting plinked off easily by standard Marine Rifleman who knew marksmenship. The German advance didn't stand a chance and they could not accuratly return fire.
What does this have to do with the accuracy between AK and M16?
Americans and Germans used about just as powerful rounds, except germans had a slightly more accurate round design.
In the example it is more about invidual skills than the accuracy of guns.
Also M16 and the powerful stantard rifle rounds back then are in a waaaay different class.
M16's hardly penetrates crap compared to the old rifles.
A tree trunk could cover you from an M16 round, but not from a .30-06.
The story doesn't tell either did the Marines use M1903 or M1 Garand.
Garand had a better suppression capability than Kar98K
-
Originally posted by Fishu
What does this have to do with the accuracy between AK and M16?
Americans and Germans used about just as powerful rounds, except germans had a slightly more accurate round design.
In the example it is more about invidual skills than the accuracy of guns.
Also M16 and the powerful stantard rifle rounds back then are in a waaaay different class.
M16's hardly penetrates crap compared to the old rifles.
A tree trunk could cover you from an M16 round, but not from a .30-06.
The story doesn't tell either did the Marines use M1903 or M1 Garand.
Garand had a better suppression capability than Kar98K
it has to do with accuracy/range in comparing an M-16 to an AK. that's ALL I was getting at. Caliber and other things make a difference I'd agree but I'm saying I wouldnt trade a weapon that had an effective range of 550 meters for a 300 meter weapon.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
What does this have to do with the accuracy between AK and M16?
Americans and Germans used about just as powerful rounds, except germans had a slightly more accurate round design.
In the example it is more about invidual skills than the accuracy of guns.
Also M16 and the powerful stantard rifle rounds back then are in a waaaay different class.
M16's hardly penetrates crap compared to the old rifles.
A tree trunk could cover you from an M16 round, but not from a .30-06.
The story doesn't tell either did the Marines use M1903 or M1 Garand.
Garand had a better suppression capability than Kar98K
Did they HAVE a version of the M1 in 1917?
-
Bj.
Nope they didn't have Garands in WW1 they almost didn't have them for WW2 as it entered production just about the start of the war for the US. Frankly fishu talks a lot but knows very little about military matters. In WW1 the springfield was the issue rifle for the regular troops. They DID have the BAR in production but to apease the french and their ego the expeditionary force accepterd that HUGE POS (I don't know the spelling but it was pronounced sho sho) the french thought was a light MG. That weapon got plenty of our troops killed because it didn't work.
-
We had the Springfield and the Enfield. Superb bolt action rifles. Both of 'em remained in use clear thru Vietnam.. and to present day. The Germans had the Gewehr98.. also and excellent rifle. The Russians had the Mosin-Nagant.. also a superb rifle. All of them accurate to insane ranges, unheard of by todays battlefield standards. All of these weapons were in front line use and remained the standard issue weapons of all 4 army's. (Springfield, USA, Enfield, Britan Ka98, Germay, Mosin-Nagant, Russia) clear thru WWII. The diffrence at Belleau Woods was the training of the US Marines... the marines were superb marksmen, and they engaged at ranges that astounded the Germans.
German General Ludendorff set the stage during The Great War for the Battle of Belleau Wood when he launched the Chemin des Dames offensive against the Allied Northern Front on May 27, 1918. The Fourth Brigade, American Expeditionary Forces, along with other allied forces moved north on May 20. 2nd Division Marines dug in along a defensive line north of the village of Lucy-Le-Bocage.
When advised to withdraw by a senior French officer retreating with his units down Paris-Metz highway, Marine Captain Lloyd Williams replied, “Retreat, hell! We just got here!”
The front finally settled with the 5th Marines to the west and the 6th Marines to the east. Most units deployed without machine guns, but 2nd Bn, 5th Marines showed the Germans the effects of their superior long distance marksmanship.
On June 6, the Marines make two assaults. The 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment attacks west of Belleau Wood and captures the strategically important Hill 142. Later the same day battalions of the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments assault the woods from the south and west in an effort to capture the town of Bouresches.
The attack against the woods proper goes grimly. Crossing a wheat field where they are exposed to machine gun fire. Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly asks his men, “Come on ya sons-of-*****es, ya want to live forever?” The attack is only able to seize a small corner of the wood.
On June 11 after heavy artillery bombardment, Marines succeed in securing two-thirds of Belleau Wood, again with heavy casualties. Marines hammered their way through the woods until the Germans counterattacked with intense artillery fire and three divisions on June 13, almost retaking Bouresches. The Marines held, again displaying superb marksmanship and incredible determination and on June 14, the German counterattack culminated in failure.
(http://www.lha3.navy.mil/BWD%20Internet/Images/historypic1.jpg)
The lines did not change until June 24 when the French command committed sufficient artillery to reduce the woods, allowing the Marines to prepare for a renewed assault. On June 25, after a 14-hour bombardment, the Marines overran the remaining machine gun outposts. After fending off several early morning counterattacks on June 26, Major Maurice Shearer sends the signal, “Woods now entirely U.S. Marine Corps.”
The Marines gained more than a small battered woodland. They stopped the last major German offensive of The Great War. In doing so, the Marine Corps earned the respect and admiration of our country and our allies. The 4th Brigade was awarded the French Citation, A L’Orde de L’Armee, and the wood was officially renamed, “Bois de la Brigade Marie,” in honor of the Marines.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The 4th Brigade was awarded the French Citation, A L’Orde de L’Armee, and the wood was officially renamed, “Bois de la Brigade Marie,” in honor of the Marines.[/i]
I thought it was the "Croix de Guerre" Maybe that's the same thing but to this day the 4th Marines are authorized to wear it (a green rope over thier left shoulder) for actions their unit did during WWI.
EDIT:
Ok I found it:
(http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/2dmardiv/26/images/gfour.jpg)
The French Government awarded decorations for especially meritorious conduct in action during World War I to 156 American units varying in size from a section to a brigade. These decorations were the Fourragere and the Croix de Guerre with various combinations of palms, gilt, silver, and bronze stars. The unit twice decorated with the Croix de Guerre with Palms was entitled to a braided and knotted cord, called a Fourragere, in the green and red colors of the Croix de Guerre. The Fourragere becomes part of the uniform of the unit so cited and all members of the organization are authorized to wear the decoration on the left shoulder of the uniform as long as they remain members of the organization. According to Larousse's Grand Dictionary of the XIX Century, the Fourragere was originated by the Duke of Alva, a Spanish general. After a unit of Flemish troops had made a rather hasty withdrawal from the battlefield, the Duke ordered "that any further misconduct, on the part of these troops, should be punished by hanging, without regard for rank or grade". The Flemish warriors, determined to reestablish themselves in the good graces of their commander, wore -- as a reminder of their disgrace -- coiled around one shoulder, a rope in the shape of a hangman's noose, at the end of which dangled a long spike. In their next battle the Flemings fought so gallantly and well the noose and spike became a mark of distinction and honor. The French Fourragere is a decoration instituted by Napoleon I for units which distinguished themselves in battle. It was revived during World War I and was awarded by the French Ministry of War to organizations which were cited more than once in the French Orders of the Army. The three classes of the Fourragere are as follows: First -- Legion d'Honneur - Scarlet; Second -- Medaille Militare - Yellow and Red; Third -- Croix de Guerre (with palm) - Green and Red. In 1918, Marines of the Fifth and Sixth Regiments, by their heroic deeds of valor, inscribed the names of momentous and brilliant battles on the pages of Marine Corps history, as well as on their own regimental battle colors. They have the single honor of being the only two regiments in the American Expeditionary Force to receive three citations -- two in the orders of the army and one in the orders of the corps -- the Fourragere and the croix de Guerre with two Palms and one Gilt Star.
-
See rule # 5
-
well EXCUSE ME for misreading it as WWII instead of WWI.
Nobody of course came to figure out that possibility in their mighty smartness.
Maverick,
You base my knowledge on something I wrote because of misreading?
good to know.
However my actual argument is still valid.
The ammunition is pretty much the same between WWI and WWII.
I do know that the Springfield is based on the K98 :)
USA paid royalties to Germany until the WWI.
-
Just to be clear. AK was chosed to supplement a need to dismount and in open terrain (several miles of clear visibility) the M-9 (beretta) was not a viable choice. The AK was reliable but not accurate beyond 100m. Eventually the AK was replaced by am MP-5 which had significant benefits.
The M-16 has often been attacked due to reliability (jamming) and caliber size. Some things to keep in mind:
1) It is a fairly light weapon when fully loaded (ammo is easy to carry)
2) It has a mild recoil and can be fired by a person weighing 150lbs (or less)
3) It has a proven accuracy off 300m or more and markmanship can easily be taught due to the fairly simple sighting system (and somewhat natural feel to the shouldering of the weapon)
4) It is easily upgradable with accessories and heavier barrells (etc).
5) Mainenance is fairly easy and the weapon works just fine if kept wet (which is why it has to be kept so darn clean).
I have fired most of the military weapons talked about in this thread and agree with the observations about the M-14 and M-1 however I weight 230lbs and can easily deal with the recoil and weight. The modern military is not structured the same way. A lighter, milder weapon is necessary as a general purpose weapon.
-
Originally posted by Eden
Just to be clear. AK was chosed to supplement a need to dismount and in open terrain (several miles of clear visibility) the M-9 (beretta) was not a viable choice. The AK was reliable but not accurate beyond 100m. Eventually the AK was replaced by am MP-5 which had significant benefits.
And also the RG soldier firing the weapon had somehow "missed" and this was a bit of a trophy (a good luck charm if you will). (A basic rule of war - "a hand gun is what you use to fight your way to a rifle")
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Bj.
Nope they didn't have Garands in WW1 they almost didn't have them for WW2 as it entered production just about the start of the war for the US. Frankly fishu talks a lot but knows very little about military matters. In WW1 the springfield was the issue rifle for the regular troops. They DID have the BAR in production but to apease the french and their ego the expeditionary force accepterd that HUGE POS (I don't know the spelling but it was pronounced sho sho) the french thought was a light MG. That weapon got plenty of our troops killed because it didn't work.
It was a Chauchat and was developed to fire the french developed Lebel Ammunition (first cartridge to use a smokeless powder). THe round was heavily tapered and rimmed (here is a snapshot)
(http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/5416/lebelammo0tt.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
When the machine gun was developed the limitations of the round became aparent. The heavy taper and rim caused all types of feeding problems. The weapon crew had to grease the rounds in order to feed them and the magazine was this awful half mood design (the sides of the magazine were open and debris would get in there and jam the whole works up.
(http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/6349/chachaut8hj.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
The French learned early that it was a POS and unfortunately had a ton of them in their invetory. How else to make their money back but to sell to an unwary US.
-
fishu.. just in case no one else caught it... the 8mm round is not more accurate than the 30-06... it is less. The ought six has a better balistic coeficient and drops less at longer range.
some german soldiers were good marksmen but most had never fired a gun before the war...
Just like most had never driven or worked on cars or trucks before WWII In WWII the rate was one in every ten Americans could repair a jeep or truck while only one in 1,000 germans could.
Eden makes very valid points also... the M14 may just have been too much rifle for modern troops... it certainly was for the vietnamese troops we were supplying.. they really liked the m1 carbine before that..
I think that as fewer and fewer Americans grow up with guns (I hope that trend doesn't continue) or as firearms training is lessened... we will see even less Americans able to handle a full power battle rifle..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fishu.. just in case no one else caught it... the 8mm round is not more accurate than the 30-06... it is less. The ought six has a better balistic coeficient and drops less at longer range.
Regarding the WWII difference I've heard a bit different opionins, something like the 7.92x57mm was slightly more balanced.
Although the difference between .30-06 and 8mm is probably too small to be relevant in the battlefield.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Eden makes very valid points also... the M14 may just have been too much rifle for modern troops... it certainly was for the vietnamese troops we were supplying.. they really liked the m1 carbine before that..
lazs
Also, the US no longer has weapons designed for crews (such as the M-3 grease gun - our unit got rid of ours a few months prior to mobilization - at the same time we turned our M1911s in for M-9s :cry) No one really expects a handgun to be a weapon of choice on a battlefield but a tank has a small inside (and we need room for the cooler). The M-16 was designed for use and carry inside or on top of vehicles. It is short (especially the ever popular M-4 carbine version) and the pistol grip makes it easy to move and manipulate. The modern army is designed around the mobile force - I.E. Bradleys, LAVs and M-1s and a small, easy to control weapon is necessary. The M-16 is sort-of a compromise between the SMG and the Battle Rifle.
-
A few years ago the Irish army were replacing their FN's so they evaluated all the available assault rifles. M16, SA80, Galil etc
In the end they went for the Steyr Aug. The Aussies use it too. I never heard any complaints about it's reliability or other issues. It was said that you could drive a tank over it and still expect it to work. It is still a 5.56 though.
Somehow or other it's probably time for the US military to think about replacing the M16 variant. It's begining to show it's age.
-
The bullpup design certainly has its advantages.
-
As well as many disadvantages.
-
Carlos
In 1967, Hathcock set a record for the longest combat kill with a 0.50 caliber BMG mounting a telescopic sight. The distance was an astounding 2250 meters.
thats 1.42 miles, holy sh,sh,
lets not forget the canadians..
The record stood until 2002, when it was broken during Operation Anaconda when a Canadian three-man sniper team from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI), set the new record with a shot of 2,430 meters on a Taliban fighter.
1.53 miles
-
There is some great video of those Canadian Sniper teams in action (from the spotter's viewpoint). I forget the link (a google search for 50 Cal Sniper should find it).
Just be warned that these are pretty graphic. A .50 caliber is a devastating weapon (imagine a lead disc the size of a soup bowl traveling through your body at an unimaginable rate of speed).
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't rememer anyone calling "communist lies" or even anyone who didn't see burning M1s on the news
I posted it about 12 hours before it was in Western news. AFAIR it was a Lybian channel, my friend tuned to it after F1 race.
Originally posted by NUKE
That reminds me of the time US forces entered the center of Baghdad, and you didn't believe it, saying that the Russian reporters couldn't find any of them :D
I only quoted Russian reporters who saw "soldiers in nazi-like hemets" on the other side of the river.
Should I search for that threads?
Originally posted by NUKE
And Boroda, if you were able to see something on SAT tv, then I'm sure people here saw the same things. Contrary to popular belief, the US does not only have CNN and FOX news.
Try to smoke Geography. Sattelites that transmit to Europe (and Eastern hemisphere in general) can't be "seen" from the US. Arabs don't buy channels on the sattelites that broadcast over the US. Chinese buy transponders on almost every sattelite, so you can always tune to CCTV channels for free from anywhere, Arabs are not that devoted and Russians are not that smart. I mean that Russian channels on sattelites are usually encrypted, it's absolutely stupid IMHO. Even Ukrainians have several good Russian-language channels that are free, while our "great minds" try to extort money for viewing government TV.
-
That Canadian sniper is my partner who works for Triple canopy's former roomate.
As for the endless 5.56/9mm vs 7.62/.45 debate, my partner in my private military company here who is currently stringing out to TC in Iraq has shot numerous people with 5.56, and a couple with 9mm, with most of these shots resulting in immediate incapacitation and then death. SHOT PLACEMENT + Blended metal ammunition (still semi/sorta classified I suppose) = massive trauma as well as armor penetration capability unlike the world has seen in small arms.
He's emptied his ready-gun bag, which is ten magazines, and shot many of the mags in his load bearing equipment, and has yet to have a malfuntion in his M4. Same goes for the M249's. I think the reason you see such a disparity in the reliability and lethality of the 16/m4/5.56 between private contractors and regular army is that the army/marines are out in the dust and dirt a LOT more, and their accuracy is usually some percentage points behind that of the special operations community, whose members comprise large numbers of the private companies ranks.
My personal rifle is a Socom Springfield M1a, basically a cut down m14 with a rail system and other crap. I'd prefer to shoot my Valtro as a sidearm, but the two companies I do work for use the Glock 19, which have proven to be ultra reliable (with ultra gay triggers) in the desert, and the Sig226, which, obviously since I'm instructor for Sig, I swear by. What I'm saying is don't shoot the messenger as I prefer .45 and 7.62 myself, BUT 5.56/9mm is proving plenty lethal in Iraq. I'll link an article a guy from Blackwater that I know wrote specificaly about this issue once my canadian gun site is back up.
-
Snopes that thing. Stuff like this does not inspire confidence...
The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light
machine gun.
That would be like a "WW2 Fighter Ace" writing an email about the P-53 Mustang turboprop...
-
the aug is probly the best .223 out there. accurate and extremely reliable. If the bullpup diesign has any disadvantages other than people trained in conventional weapons getting used to it... I am not aware of em.
The 223 round in civilian shoots in the U.S. has a very good stopping power record.. allmost 100%.. the 9mm with ball ammo on the mean streets of the U.S. has a dismal record tho...
lazs
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Snopes that thing. Stuff like this does not inspire confidence...
That would be like a "WW2 Fighter Ace" writing an email about the P-53 Mustang turboprop...
The Saw can be fed by m-16 style magazines or by belt. The belts come in ~220 round "drums" or assault packs. To call it a drum is a bit of a misnomer but not entirely off.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the 9mm with ball ammo on the mean streets of the U.S. has a dismal record tho...
lazs
Ain't that the truth. Military uses 9mm Ball only. Good thing they come in 15 round packages - you'll need them.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Snopes that thing. Stuff like this does not inspire confidence...
That would be like a "WW2 Fighter Ace" writing an email about the P-53 Mustang turboprop...
I was a little more concerned about the mention of the M24 SWS, which is Army. I'm not sure, but doesn't the USMC use the M40 SWS? Still a minor point I guess.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
To call it a drum is a bit of a misnomer but not entirely off.
Only if you don't know what drum-fed means.
-
True enough funked but it does look like a drum. Your right but that does not mean the guy writing it is fabricating a position. It looked like a scuttlebutt summary from a guy who was there. Your using a technicality to question what is otherwise a rational summary.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the aug is probly the best .223 out there. accurate and extremely reliable.
err..no
When they say the sale goes to the lowest bidder in military circles they were certainly not wrong when it came to the Steyr. We have had this Australian version of the original Austrian AUG for the better part of 20 years and only the adequate training of our personnel has countered its less than reasonable performance in the field. The Australians are currently looking for a more satisfactory replacement. So should we. Fogging optics, junk magazines and a barrel that can not sustain a reasonable rate of automatic rifle and fallible safety mechanisms are just some of the issues with this rifle. Not acceptable no matter the good accuracy it produces, when there are plenty of sturdy and more reliable options available. To prevent any need for a change in training the New Zealand government could quite easily invest in a replacement lot of rifles from the original designer, Steyr of Austria. Otherwise purchasing the M16A4 or similar would be wise. This is the most recent rifle in the M16 family. One aspect of the F88 Steyr can be summed up by an actual order by the Australian Army, order No. 7196-94 which indicated that the Steyr should not be used on rapid fire for long because plastic parts melted
http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defencesolutions.html
The NZ army didn't want the Aug. Their first choice was Canadian M16a2's, but the politicians made the decision for them.
Replacing the Aug would be costly, so the army is probably going to be stuck with them for quite a few years yet.
Excel
-
I hate it when my weapon melts.
:eek:
-
Originally posted by JBA
Carlos
In 1967, Hathcock set a record for the longest combat kill with a 0.50 caliber BMG mounting a telescopic sight. The distance was an astounding 2250 meters.
thats 1.42 miles, holy sh,sh,
lets not forget the canadians..
The record stood until 2002, when it was broken during Operation Anaconda when a Canadian three-man sniper team from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI), set the new record with a shot of 2,430 meters on a Taliban fighter.
1.53 miles
That's interesting, since the only weapon I've seen listed as being used by Carlos Hathcock was a .308 (7.62 Nato) bolt action sniper rifle (once classified as an M40A or M40A1?). I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying I'm not aware of Carlos Hathcock ever using any sort of 50 BMG sniper rifle. As best I remember, his active military service in the field ended in the late sixties or early seventies, when he was severely burned while rescuing several guys from a burning amtrack.
The military 50 BMG bolt action and semi auto sniper rifles (the Barretts) were designed about 15 miles from here in a steakhouse on a napkin by Ronnie Barrett, then a Rutherford County Deputy Sheriff in the early eighties. Ronnie is a friend and customer of mine, the rifles are now built in the old BlueBird school bus factory.
The Army has, or maybe had (it may be gone with all the facility closures), a proving ground down the road in Bell Buckle, I went down there with Ronnie right after Desert Storm, and shot his rifles on their proving ground. I was able to hold about an 8" group at maximum range by mid day. The damned things are incredible, and to me easier to shoot than my Model 70 300 Winchester Magnum. I'd love to have one just for fun, but can't afford $4K for a firearm. You'd think Ronnie could get me a deal, but he can't.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The military 50 BMG bolt action and semi auto sniper rifles (the Barretts) were designed about 15 miles from here in a steakhouse on a napkin by Ronnie Barrett, then a Rutherford County Deputy Sheriff in the early eighties. Ronnie is a friend and customer of mine, the rifles are now built in the old BlueBird school bus factory.
The story goes he used a .50cal machinegun for that.
With a scope etc.
However I'd be interested to know how many times he missed with that thing.
I really don't think that a machinegun has any 1 shot 1 kill chance, those just aren't made that accurate.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That's interesting, since the only weapon I've seen listed as being used by Carlos Hathcock was a .308 (7.62 Nato) bolt action sniper rifle (once classified as an M40A or M40A1?). I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying I'm not aware of Carlos Hathcock ever using any sort of 50 BMG sniper rifle. As best I remember, his active military service in the field ended in the late sixties or early seventies, when he was severely burned while rescuing several guys from a burning amtrack.
The military 50 BMG bolt action and semi auto sniper rifles (the Barretts) were designed about 15 miles from here in a steakhouse on a napkin by Ronnie Barrett, then a Rutherford County Deputy Sheriff in the early eighties. Ronnie is a friend and customer of mine, the rifles are now built in the old BlueBird school bus factory.
The Army has, or maybe had (it may be gone with all the facility closures), a proving ground down the road in Bell Buckle, I went down there with Ronnie right after Desert Storm, and shot his rifles on their proving ground. I was able to hold about an 8" group at maximum range by mid day. The damned things are incredible, and to me easier to shoot than my Model 70 300 Winchester Magnum. I'd love to have one just for fun, but can't afford $4K for a firearm. You'd think Ronnie could get me a deal, but he can't.
He used a 50 cal M2 , not a dedicated rifle. He simply fitted a scope on it to nail this guy who regulary rode his bike up to recon the FB he was at. That is what makes it an even more amazing shot. He Macgyvered together a setup from a regular old M2 and made the shot.
-
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 M2 50cal will fire in semi auto. And there are scopes made for it, even in the vietnam war. It's not really gerri-rigging.
-
yup... M2's are and always were select fire semi/full.
If I recall the story properly he used the scope he had.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Bj.
Nope they didn't have Garands in WW1 they almost didn't have them for WW2 as it entered production just about the start of the war for the US. Frankly fishu talks a lot but knows very little about military matters. In WW1 the springfield was the issue rifle for the regular troops. They DID have the BAR in production but to apease the french and their ego the expeditionary force accepterd that HUGE POS (I don't know the spelling but it was pronounced sho sho) the french thought was a light MG. That weapon got plenty of our troops killed because it didn't work.
Well it's inexact ,the chauchat was used by the AEF as an interim weapon waiting for the browning.
The unreliability was created by the change made to the weapon to use .30 (or 0.303 ? I don't remember) instead of 8mm because the manufacturer had trouble with non metric measurement.
-
Originally posted by straffo
The unreliability was created by the change made to the weapon to use .30 (or 0.303 ? I don't remember) instead of 8mm because the manufacturer had trouble with non metric measurement.
The unreliability was at least in part created by the magazine design and placement which admited dirt and contamination.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Well it's inexact ,the chauchat was used by the AEF as an interim weapon waiting for the browning.
The unreliability was created by the change made to the weapon to use .30 (or 0.303 ? I don't remember) instead of 8mm because the manufacturer had trouble with non metric measurement.
I think you will have a hard time defending the Chauchat (sorry). From what I have read it had a lot of problems (not just due to re-chambering which was something that was tried to improve the reliability). The rounds were heavily tapered and rimmed and had to be greased by the crew in order to feed properly. The magazine had an opening in the side which enabled the grease to be applied but also enabled debris to get in and clog the whole thing up. Due to the shape of the round the magazine was curved dramatically and was limited to 20 rounds (compared to the 500 round belt in the Maxim). It also had a fairly long stroke which compounded the debris problem and made firing the thing a difficult process (it was unaccurate due to this issue - the 8X51R lebel round does kick hard). It had a problem ejecting rounds and was made out of mostly shoddy stamped parts.
Somwhere I read that they made over 250,000 of them and it seems likely that they were sold to the Americans in order to try and make back some money.
-
hmm ... well I should have wrote : "even more unreliable" instead :)
IMO the chauchat should be compared to the BAR not the Maxim
that won't make the chauchat a better weapon :D
-
Now the Fusil Automatique Modele 1917 rifle was something ideed!
Credit where its due. France was one of the first contries to adopt a semi-automatic rifle as a standard issue (I think Mexico was the first. In 1911 the Mexican army adopted the Mondragon semi-auto. Designed by Gen Mondragon of the Mexican Army.) Interesting history (The french weapon designers always seem to be shrouded in mystery and the history is hard to piece together) and strange how they went back to a bolt action rifle with the MAS-36.
-
Not strange , the french HQ was convinced the soldier will waste ammo with a semi-auto.
And again this gun was not reliable ...
If you can read French (or use an online translator) : http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/sommaire.html
-
If you guys are interested in military hisory, weapons development and sniper rifles you might wanna check out Rifles of the White Death.
Rifles of the White Death traces the interesting history of Finnish arms development as well as Finland's amazing national history. While the book is geared toward the firearms collector, it does have merit for the non-collector interested in world history. The story of Finland is greatly unknown to the modern day shooter, which is sad. The history of Finland is one filled with determination, a continual fight for freedom, ingenuity and incredible military feats against terrible odds. I would not call this a gripping read -- after all, the book is mainly about the variations in specific collectable arms. Still, the facts presented within the pages are valuable and interesting enough to help change your world view. Finland is probably the only nation in the world to be invaded by the Soviet Union and remain sovereign. During two separate wars, the Finns bloodied the Russian forces to the extent that the Soviets had to except a less-than-ideal victory. Expecting an easy rollover, Stalin invaded Finland in November of 1939. The prognosis was a 16-day victory. As the war rolled on past that optimistic deadline, the Finn forces managed a kill ratio of 40 Soviets for every Finn soldier killed. Of the 1,500,000 man invading army, the Russians lost 1,000,000. In total, the Finns lost 25,000 men. The bravery and determination of the Finnish soldier should be a continual lesson to anyone who values freedom. Their fighting skill and excellent marksmanship decimated their enemy. After the Winter War of 1939 and 1940, a Russian general was quoted as having said, "We gained 22,000 miles of new territory. Just enough to bury our dead".
The book also includes an interesting segment of sniper rifle development and military history. Again, the historian in me was intrigued to learn of the various modifications to the original M-N 91 design to make it an efficient long-range sniper rifle. While we are usually caught up in new developments within the sniper industry, it is always interesting for me personally to delve into the history of the art. I particularly enjoy comparing the old with the new. It is often eye opening to realize the feats individual soldiers have achieved with equipment that we today would consider less than obsolete! Today we talk of mil-dots, high power scopes, IR, Starlight, and Laser Range finding. Yet in the 1930s and 1940s, a sniper was expected to do his job with little more than an iron sighted rifle. A Finn farmer turned civil guardsman still holds the highest kill record of any sniper in history. Simo Häyhä, as recounted in the book, was responsible for the demise of 505 Russian soldiers! (Editor's note: Some sources say as many as 542 kills in this three month period.) Another Finn tallied 400 Russians as a sniper and another 200 with a submachine gun. What truly amazes me is that these two gentlemen plied their trade at ranges sometimes in excess of 600 yards - with IRON sights! Equally amazing is how quickly they managed to do this.
I've got a Finn M-39 and a M-27.. and they are without doubt (1500 rounds thru 'em now) the most accurate bolt action battle rifles I've ever held in my hands. Even without the impressive 'history' it's instantly apparent when you handle one what it was designed to do.. and it does it very, very well.
For you Sniper Fans (http://www.snipercountry.com/SnipHistory.asp#Hathcock)
-
Thanks Hangtime,
Definitely on the "To Read" list. Makes me appreciate my M-39 more now.
-
The Finns also made this monster... wonder what 'ol Carlos Hatchcock coulda done with one of these. ;)
(http://www.obscure-reference.com/guns/berloque/berloque_lahti_1_thumb.jpg) Lahti Anti-Tank Rifle
As an interesting aside, they sold fer about 75 bucks each here in the US back in the 1960's. Would love to see the look on the guys face up at the range office with the reply to the 'caliber?' question.
"20mm"
Muahahhahhahhaaahhaha!
-
Awesome,
Back in the day when Anti-Tank guns could be man-portable.
-
the solothurn was a better semi auto 20mm anti tank gun but it went for a lot more money in the 60's some sold for as much as $150 mail order delivered to your home... 20 mm ammo was as much as $10 a hundred delivered..
lazs
-
Hi,
Thanks for posting that, forwarded it to a few guys who have spent a lot of time "over there" for their feedback. Will let you know if I get anything really interesting in reply.
The weapons ratings pretty much correspond with what I've been hearing. The SF guys are no longer asking for, they are demanding a new round to replace the .223 and word has it the military will probably increase the caliber of the next generation of military rifles. However, it is almost certainly not going to be the 7.62 round, but something in-between. The logic seems to be that they want a round with increased penetration and stopping power, but also something female and smaller soldiers can still fire without getting knocked over themselves. They also want a round that stops in an enemy rather than passing through, which is a tall order obviously. Changing the bullet composition may be the answer here.
Anywho, regarding the Jihadis, yup you line up the stats and the Coalition forces are winning hands down, but then again, they can win any war of attrition we enter into simply by never giving up. We, on the other hand, with a little over 2,000 dead are already debating how we are going to leave the battlefield.
There is a widely repeated anecdote in the Arab world of a mother who had seven sons, she sent them off one by one to fight as Jihadis, and she never cried as they left for the struggle. One by one they were killed, but she never cried or hesitated to send the next son off to battle. Finally word came that her seventh son had been martyred in the war against the infidels, and at this news she burst into tears. When her friends asked her "is it because all your sons are gone that you weep or do you cry because you loved your youngest son more than all the others?" to which she replied, "no, I weep because I have no more sons to send to die for Allah."
The anecdotes that Western media prefers to circulate, tend to be provided by Cindy Sheehan and certainly don't dwell on how proud we are of sacrifices made that were intended to preserve and defend democracy, freedom of religion, and win those rights for others, etc.
As I've said before, I'm not sure we have the level of commitment as a culture necessary to stand up to a movement that confesses: Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief. [Slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood and most of the affiliated Jihadist organizations including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Abu Sayaaf, etc.] and is willing to put that confession into action, again and again, and again, ad infinitum.
I hope and pray I'm wrong yet again.
-
Resolution comes from desparation. So far we are not that desparate.
-
The M2 was never semi auto. NEVER.
However, it fired at such a slow rate of fire that it was easy to squeeze off single shots.
-
It can be set to single fire by adjusting the internal timing knob (a little cheat in the design) however you are correct in that it is easy enough to fire single shot with a little practice (even if still set as automatic).
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The M2 was never semi auto. NEVER.
However, it fired at such a slow rate of fire that it was easy to squeeze off single shots.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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? :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.bobtuley.com/carloshathcock.htm)
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :D
(Sorry couldn't resist)
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
The Finns build some outstanding rifles (Sako).. and they have a very long and colorful history of adapting their enemies (Russian) weapons to maximum potential. The populations skill with rifles and military weapons is legendary.
You can take yer buddies commentary as gospel, dovetails with everything I've heard.
-
Well, looks like the "letter" has been circulating the internet. It's been debunked on Tactical Forums by BTDT folks at the least:
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001814
The inconsistencies (drum vs. links in a box SAW, M4 and M24 for USMC instead of M16A4 and M40, among other things) are what makes it suspicious.
-
I'd agree with much of the original assessment.
I operated as the "Ma Duece" (or "Ma Deuce" I've seen it spelled various ways) gunner on a "gun truck" (5-ton dump truck with bolted on untempered boiler plate for armor) for convoy escort many times, and I luv'd that big heavy pig. Never failed. Operates more like a small block engine than a mechanical firearm.
'Course, finding ammo was always a problem.... only issued 200 rounds in Kuwuit (basic load is 1,000 to 2,000 rounds depending on MTOE), and managed to barter and beg another 600 rounds from various sources, but still not great if I'd have gotten caught in one of those notoriously long firefights while I was in-country. 30mm grenade launchers (Mark-19 and 203) only had a (very) few rounds as well. Lubricant usually came from cans of WD-40 more often than not. Cleaned it a couple times using oven cleaner.
The M-16 I was issued came "new" with a bent barrel. Had a Colt AR-15 scope for it that I never could get to line up with impact point quite right. Iron sights were completely maxed out, Colt sight did not have that much adjustment in it (guess they'd assumed it'd be put on a straight rifle.....). Piece of junk, which I mentioned...often...and loudly... to no avail. Never fired it in anger while in-country......the Ma Duce, OTOH......
All rifles had basic load of 220-230 rounds (nobody completely fills a 20 or 30 round magazine if you want to avoid another potential source of jams) .....but no additional bandoleers of ammo were available to us.... again, our SOP was "shoot and scoot"...we couldn't stay to put up a sustained fight no matter how much we wanted to.
SAW (243), two options for us for the belt feed...100 round soft-side bags, or 200 round "porkchops" (plastic drum).... gunners kept with the 100 rounders because the 200 rounders jammed so often (probably the weight of additional rounds working against the feeder during operation), and the porkchops were hard to wield in tight areas...and could break, split, or get knocked off the weapon. 'Course the fabric bags could wear out too.
This was all during OIF-II. You would see all sorts of jury-rigged vehicle mounted systems. We'd raid former Iraqi Army arms rooms and deal with black marketeers to acquire Soviet (and later Russian) era weapons and ammunition.
I saw Iraqi armor taken from BMPs attached to our vehicles. I saw a nice Soviet-era NVS "utes" mounted on an American HEMMET "gun truck" rig. Also saw a wheeled anti-aircraft/armor gun being hauled off by a group....offen wondered what they managed with that. Makarov and various Czech pistols were not uncommon sights. Turrents, pintal mounts, and blister shields from Iraqi armor vehicles were sought after for conversion to mount our weapons systems onto vehicles that did not normally have them.
We kept a decent RPK with 5 drum mags in the back of our "gun truck" in case my .50 or the 243 gunner ran dry on ammo, or seriously jammed, during a fight.
as to 5.56 vs 7.62 and .45ACP vs 9mm endless argument. A lot of it is perceptions, and the actual environment has a lot to do with how a round will perform in the real world vs a "lab" environment. Many opinions exist on the choice of these rounds.
5.56 is lighter (carry more --- if issued enough to begin with :mad: ) and will usually travel further in open spaces, and as a tumbling round can do serious damage (or light damage...tumbling rounds are unpredictable)....but M16 and its variants are maintenance wh***s in desert environment.... not reliable, even with good maintenance, if you get caught in a dust storm, or hauling a** down a unimproved dirt road over there before or during fight. That talcum-like dust gets into everything. After a cleaning, yes it will fire well. 5.56 round also typically spins off the first thing it hits, so lousy in heavy brush. The 5.56 cambered in a weapon that could handle a dusty, desert environment would perform very well indeed.
7.62 normally has shorter ranges, more "kick" (accuracy problem for some soldiers who are gun-shy --- not all of us grew up hunting or doing range target practice), can usually bull their way thru brush and scrub to find their way to target, usually more knock-down and penetration power, result in heavier basic load. And it sounds a whole lot more intimidating than a 5.56 being fired....but then there's the difference in outgoing and incoming rounds to consider. It will also penetrate car window glass a bit easier.
9mm Para sucks as a combat round. Okay for city SWAT and such due to not puttin gup with overpenetration and hitting innocents, but as a battlefield round it sucks.
.45 is a classic, but my personal choices run to the .40 cal and (especially) 10mm (basically a .40 cal Magnum)
A lot of reasons military went to lighter NATO rounds. Compatability with NATO. Lighter rounds tend to "wound" not kill, and the wounded soldier usually requires (ideally) 2 soldiers to take him from the battlefield --- effectively removing 3 fighters with one round (so sez the doctrine at the time). Idea that you can carry more of the lighter rounds weight-wise.
That is for a "more civilized" battlefield ideal. Not good having pea-shot when dealing with radicals, berzerkers, or guys hopped up on drugs coming at you in human waves or with several pounds of explosives strapped to their chest. You want to put them down NOW. Permanent-like. Similar to reasons U.S. Army first adopted the .45 in 1911 in the first place.
I'm in the bigger is better camp.....then again, I'm also a Ma Duece gunner. :D
-
Alpha
Whiskey Romeo's (Allah's Waiting Room).
:rofl :rofl :rofl God help me but I love that statement.
-
Originally posted by joowenn
Ive never seen an ak-47 with a scope on it, then again what do I know.
Check my spelling but I think it is called a Dragonov
-
Originally posted by Excel1
A very interesting thread.
Imo the .223/5.56 round is too small for military use and the M16 should have been chambered for a bigger round, but Armalite stuffed things up to begin with by designing the AR15 to use a varmint round- the .222rem, which was too underpowered to use in a military rifle. The .223/5.56 was a compromise that avoided them having to stretch the action of the rifle to get a larger cartridge to fit.
Excel
Try reading about ballistics here a good start for you.
http://www.bobtuley.com/stoner.htm
-
I believe this will cure any penatration problems.
http://edmarms.com/news.htm