Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1K3 on August 12, 2006, 04:40:28 PM
-
This is what the I.D.F. is using right now. It looks like a submachine gun but this is an assault rifle. I think US Army/Marines neeeds to purchase these...
Tavor (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/tar.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/tarcommando.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/tavor.jpg)
-
what for? do you think US can't handle designing and production of rifles?
-
What do you really know about it other than what you saw a salesman showing off on a tv show?
How has performed in exposure trials? Is it easily field stripped and cleaned? What is the MTBF? What is the cost of the rifle and replacement parts? What volume could it be delivered in? Is it really advisable to have a foreign supplier of the main battle rifle of the USA? Wouldn't you prefer as I would that we give the contract to supply arms to the USA to a US company? Will extra magazines be available in sufficient quantity for years to come?
It might be a good rifle, but there is more to consider than you think it looks cool and a tv show made it look good?
-
Originally posted by ramzey
what for? do you think US can't handle designing and production of rifles?
Not really.. M16 was hampered with problems for a long time. Now theres a new gun coming up - Based on the HK G36. German gun once again, just like on Abrams.
M1903 Springfield was based on german Kar98 rifle - Royalties were paid to Germany up to the first world war.
M1 Garand is probably the only good american rifle. M14 was quite good too.
-
Certainly a nice looking weapon.
But what kind of range and accuracy does it have?
Im no gun expert but it seems kind short barreled to be very accurate beyond a few yards
If I am wrong. enlighten me
-
It'd be a waste of money to switch from one lousy 5.56mm weapon to another.
J_A_B
-
I'm sure it has great civilian stopping power.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Im no gun expert but it seems kind short barreled to be very accurate beyond a few yards
If I am wrong. enlighten me
Barrel lenghts
M16: 508mm
M4: 370mm
Tavor TAR/STAR: 460mm
Tavor CATR: 380mm
The bull pup design just makes it look shorter - the barrel is further back in the gun, as you can see from the location of the magazine.
I'm sure Israelis have made good work on the gun, because they need the quality.
-
Looks like something you'd find in a toy store.
-
Where do the batteries go?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Not really.. M16 was hampered with problems for a long time.
You're right, 40 plus years as the rifle of issue proves the M16 sucked.
M1 Garand is probably the only good american rifle. M14 was quite good too.
Actually, the M14 is an improved version of the M1 Garand, you make it sound like the other way around. Not sure you really have a handle on those two rifles.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm sure it has great civilian stopping power.
If it has great civilian stopping power, I'm sure it stops soldiers and terrorists just as well since all categories are humans ;)
-
had an M16 for 2 days somehow the stock was broken in a firefight. liked the M14 much better.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Actually, the M14 is an improved version of the M1 Garand, you make it sound like the other way around. Not sure you really have a handle on those two rifles.
Yeah, but it didn't make it much lighter.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Certainly a nice looking weapon.
But what kind of range and accuracy does it have?
Im no gun expert but it seems kind short barreled to be very accurate beyond a few yards
If I am wrong. enlighten me
I watched this on Discovery channel ("Future weapns" or something like that). Tavor has the effective range similar to M16, it's lighter (looks like a plastic toy you can buy at 99 cents store but it's strong!), waterproofed, flexible and easy to handle in urban fighting, and its got great accuracy thanks to advanced red-dot reflex sight.
This is something that US needs because of the situation they're in...
-
I'm just not a fan of bullpups. I've shot a couple, and just the feeling of them is so unnatural.
Royalties were paid to Germany up to the first world war.
Are you sure about this? I thought springfield gave Germany the big Ole' F U right from the bat.
You're right, 40 plus years as the rifle of issue proves the M16 sucked.
After 40 years, the M16 is finally starting to become the equal of the gun it replaced, The M14.
I still hold that we should switch back to the M14.
-
I don't see much improvement over M16 other than its size.
Maybe it would be an improvement (especially on account of it's high ROF) to chamber it in .17 caliber ammo but then again you run into the problem of feeding it with non standard ammo.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Are you sure about this? I thought springfield gave Germany the big Ole' F U right from the bat.
It'd be hard to protect your own patents if you didn't :)
-
Yes, but under which court would the German government sue the US government? Remember, we're talking about 1900-1916.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, but under which court would the German government sue the US government? Remember, we're talking about 1900-1916.
Why would you need to sue a country stealing your patents? Do it yourself too. Not to talk about refusing to give any more technology to them.
Anyway, if you suddenly want to gain a technology posessed by an another country, then you would have to get the blueprints - It'd be hard to get the blueprints after you've betrayed them before. It's all about the costs, how much you're willing to invest into something. Would it be cheaper to pay royalties or invent your own technology? One thing is for sure, it could become very expensive to steal someones technology and get caught of it. It wouldn't only affect your relationship with the country you stole technology from, but other countries would become suspicious too.
Keep in mind that Germany hasn't been hostile towards US (and vice-versa) throughout the history. Normal trade relations could have existed before a war.
-
Yeah, blueprints or an actual gun. America picked up mausers from the spanish during the spanish american war.
And remember, you NEED a court to be able to sue someone. Germany couldn't sue america over it because there was no supervising court.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yeah, blueprints or an actual gun. America picked up mausers from the spanish during the spanish american war.
And remember, you NEED a court to be able to sue someone. Germany couldn't sue america over it because there was no supervising court.
you missed his point, germany wouldnt need to sue, just steal there stuff, and refuse to sell them any more new technology...
-
I think we need to hear Tony Williams since he is the predominant authority of firearms on this board.
Wolf
-
Yes but I seem to recall America did not issue it's best weapons during WWI because of fear that it would fall into the wrong hands. IIRC Yanks used a POS french Machine gun wich was eventually considered an engineering disaster.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If it has great civilian stopping power, I'm sure it stops soldiers and terrorists just as well since all categories are humans ;)
Women and children are smaller and easier to bring down. And a lot of times even the men are standing still or on their knees, so you get an easy head shot. Zionist arms makers leave no stone unturned in their quest for excellence.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes but I seem to recall America did not issue it's best weapons during WWI because of fear that it would fall into the wrong hands. IIRC Yanks used a POS french Machine gun wich was eventually considered an engineering disaster.
Some of the best weapons went to gangsters (Al Capone, etc) instead of soldiers at that time
-
Yeah...but for cost effectiveness and lethality nothing matches a good explosives belt.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I watched this on Discovery channel ("Future weapns" or something like that). Tavor has the effective range similar to M16, it's lighter (looks like a plastic toy you can buy at 99 cents store but it's strong!), waterproofed, flexible and easy to handle in urban fighting, and its got great accuracy thanks to advanced red-dot reflex sight.
This is something that US needs because of the situation they're in...
We have something that meets that description already, it's called the M4 Carbine.
-
yea, but does not looks cool enough for kids,,,,,,,,,
-
(http://www.kinoweb.de/film98/StarshipTroopers/pix/st2.jpg)
-
"Would you like to know more?"
-
They have planned to replace all our AG3 rifles to get with the "5.56" programme, but the army doesnt like that. Now they are upgrading them with new addons, sights, nightsights, gadgets and barrels and they will remain in service for many more years.. Special forces and some ranger units have used the Dieamaco C8 and some will get the G36... mostly to have easyer access to ammo on international deployments.
I liked my AG3.. was acurate even with iron sights and you could not get it to jam in cold or dust. The range and penetrating power was good too. I bet they will be fun with the new addons and gadgets
-
i haven`t seen any soldier carry this weapon. all i ever see is the m16 and the tankers have the galil.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
you missed his point, germany wouldnt need to sue, just steal there stuff, and refuse to sell them any more new technology...
That... Doesn't make any sense at all...
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Yeah...but for cost effectiveness and lethality nothing matches a good explosives belt.
Those crazy Scotsmen! They're always up to something!
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
It'd be a waste of money to switch from one lousy 5.56mm weapon to another.
J_A_B
CC that, it's a neat concept..from my understanding the barrel on that thing is about same length as M16---does anyone make something of that ilk in a 7.62x39?
-
7.62x39 isn't a real strong cartridge either.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/243_service_rifle.htm
Compared to its main competition in the infantry rifle cartridge sweepstakes, the 7.62x39 Soviet, the 5.56mm NATO cartridge has much higher velocity (for flatter trajectory), and slightly more energy downrange.
Neither actually has much punch at medium to long range: at 200 yards they have 860-875 ft. lbs. of energy, and at 300 yards they are down to only 655-710 ft. lbs. (The velocity, energy, trajectory, and wind drift figures quoted in this article are taken from the 1998 Federal, Remington, and Winchester ammunition catalogs.)
When you consider that 900 ft. lbs. of remaining bullet energy is generally considered the minimum for reliably killing an inoffensive deer, these numbers are not impressive. For what it's worth, at each range the slightly higher figure belongs to the 5.56mm.
For some outside the box ideas, check this out.
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bullet.html
6.86mm ARC/ .270 ARC
The .270 ARC therefore fulfils the criteria:-
A round that produces greater and more consistent terminal effects.
A round that achieves the above while still maintaining practical exterior ballistics.
A round that can be fired existing weapons without the weapon needing extensive modifications.
Bottom line is the .270/6.86mm ARC shoots flat to 300yds and would have better terminal effects than any assault rifle cartridge in service.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
CC that, it's a neat concept..from my understanding the barrel on that thing is about same length as M16---does anyone make something of that ilk in a 7.62x39?
Yeah, it's called the AK-47.
So, you advocate switching to a differant rifle with the same barrel length? I am still curious why you think the Tavor should replace the M16, what do you think would be better, when barrel length, caliber are the same, and in the M16 we have a proven weapon produced by Americans, with adapability to mission needs, strong support in terms of parts, trained armorers and ease of use? It is a rifle that is proven accurate, dependable, lightweight. It is easy to fire, can be had in semi- or three round burst mode, or a model offering full automatic and semi-automatic.
What exactly is the gain?
-
The Koreans have one too. Decent rifle, they were easy enough to get for cheap just a few years ago, seem to have dried up now. The Daewoo K1/K2 is a Korean copy of the M16, even uses M16 magazines and the internals are somewhat similar. No real size or weight savings, but it is a very rugged design. They also build them in 7.62x39 configuration.
Personally I dont see much advantage in any of them over the M4, not enough to advocate the expense and trouble necessary to switch. I like the G36, but even that isnt really a replacement.
-
Originally posted by Dago
So, you advocate switching to a differant rifle with the same barrel length? I am still curious why you think the Tavor should replace the M16, what do you think would be better, when barrel length, caliber are the same, and in the M16 we have a proven weapon produced by Americans, with adapability to mission needs, strong support in terms of parts, trained armorers and ease of use? It is a rifle that is proven accurate, dependable, lightweight. It is easy to fire, can be had in semi- or three round burst mode, or a model offering full automatic and semi-automatic.
What exactly is the gain?
I believe the reliability of Tavor is far ahead of the M16s. Tavor could be also easier to handle with its bull pup design and made more compact due to the barrel being further back. Israelis doesn't quite appreciated the M16s due to unreliability and fatigue - Many of the M16s sent to Israel are US military surplus. Israel also wants to be self sufficient in arming itself, which is clearly shown with the development of Merkava tanks.
It is also weird of you to ask what's the point, when every bigger NATO country has their own rifle design! Brits got L85, Germans got G36 (a version of it is soon to be in use by the US military too), French got FAMAS, Belgium got FN FNC, Italy got Beretta AR70/90...
Does any NATO country besides US use M16?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I believe the reliability of Tavor is far ahead of the M16s. Tavor could be also easier to handle with its bull pup design and made more compact due to the barrel being further back.
You make good points.
Israelis doesn't quite appreciated the M16s due to unreliability and fatigue - Many of the M16s sent to Israel are US military surplus. Israel also wants to be self sufficient in arming itself, which is clearly shown with the development of Merkava tanks.
Understandable, nobody would want to be armed with worn out weapons. I dont blame Israel for wanting to develop and producing their own weapons, but I question why the guy who started this thread thought the US should not want to do the same.
It is also weird of you to ask what's the point, when every bigger NATO country has their own rifle design! Brits got L85, Germans got G36 (a version of it is soon to be in use by the US military too), French got FAMAS, Belgium got FN FNC, Italy got Beretta AR70/90...
Does any NATO country besides US use M16?
According to some quick research, including the Colt website:
Colt weapon systems are also used in fifteen (15) NATO countries and more than 80 other countries worldwide. More than 8,000,000 units have been produced so far of which more than 90% remain in service. This represents more than 90% of all weapons produced in 5.56mm.
Exactly, so why should the US switch to the Tavor?
-
The Barrett M468 uses the .270 (6.8mm) round that Toad discussed above. It seems like a useful successor to the M-16 family, as the newer weapon is compatible with most of the M-16's accessories. Of course, it's questionable as to whether the Army will ever be willing to switch away from the lousy 5.56mm round that they so stubbornly insist on using.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Dago
Yeah, it's called the AK-47.
So, you advocate switching to a differant rifle with the same barrel length? I am still curious why you think the Tavor should replace the M16, what do you think would be better, when barrel length, caliber are the same, and in the M16 we have a proven weapon produced by Americans, with adapability to mission needs, strong support in terms of parts, trained armorers and ease of use? It is a rifle that is proven accurate, dependable, lightweight. It is easy to fire, can be had in semi- or three round burst mode, or a model offering full automatic and semi-automatic.
What exactly is the gain?
Umm I THINK i said that it was a neat concept, and that the barrel was similar in length to the M-16-- I like gadgets...the barrel contained inside the weapon is a NEAT idea..no idea how effective it is, and I know a LOT of guys have complained that the 5.56 round is lacking in many things.
-
7.62 NATO...now thats a round you can love
(http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7707/cimg31672fc.jpg)
(http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/5230/cimg23254jz.jpg)
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
i haven`t seen any soldier carry this weapon. all i ever see is the m16 and the tankers have the galil.
As our lector said on small-arms course - "Only differences between Israely assault rifle Galil and Kalashnikov's automat are the shape of forestock and a bottle-opener in a butt".
:p
-
I would love to see us switch from 5.56 to 6.8mm, but I see no reason to switch from the M16 to Tavor in the same caliber.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Women and children are smaller and easier to bring down. And a lot of times even the men are standing still or on their knees, so you get an easy head shot. Zionist arms makers leave no stone unturned in their quest for excellence.
You really have turned whacko leftist - now your're bashing Isreal and essentialy comparing them to Nazis. WTF is up with you Mike?
-
quick question
is the Diemcao C8 Canadian??
Aways thought it was USAian
-
Is it possible to produce HE bullets in 5.56mm or 7.62mm?
-
Probably not; there's not enough room for much explosive.
Oh, and there's that Geneva convention stuff too.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
quick question
is the Diemcao C8 Canadian??
Aways thought it was USAian
Diemaco arms firm of Canada has long been successfull with their C7 and C8 licensed versions of the popular Colt arms
-
If they replaced the -16 series in U.S. service, my vote would be for the G36 series to be the replacement.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You really have turned whacko leftist - now your're bashing Isreal and essentialy comparing them to Nazis. WTF is up with you Mike?
Nothing leftist about acknowledging Zionist atrocities.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Is it possible to produce HE bullets in 5.56mm or 7.62mm?
No, but you can buy frangible ammunition, and that stuff does serious damage in a body, much more than your average ball round.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Nothing leftist about acknowledging Zionist atrocities.
lets face it, you are jew hate commie and possible american terrorist
-
The M-16 has been the longest used US service rifle. Maybe there is a reason for that? How about taking a more German design approach and see where the design can be improved rather than the US (and British) approach of trying "something compelety different".
Other things to consider in a service rifle:
1. How long does it take someone to become proficient (is it easy to shoot)?
2. How many people(women, children, etc) can competently shoot the weapon ?
3. Is the weapon accurate, and what is the maximum effective range?
4. How many rednecks have this rifle and know how to use it?
Just my $.02,
Malta
-
The future replacements of M16 are here now, and are being used in combat by US forces today.
First... The Heckler Koch XM8 (US gussied over futuristic HK G36) is apprently dead as a project in its old state - the gun had some unresolved tech issues and competing manufactures complained that HK and the Army were working too closely on the project.
So HK are now pushing their new HK416 (5.56) and HK417 (7.62x51) in the US Military/LE market. The HK 416/417 are M16/M4 pattern weapons with a gas piston and other reliability improvements over the M16/M4 - like easier cleaning and use of the durable HK steel M16 30 round magazine. As for G36 HK G36 is no longer even being imported to the US, apparently.
The HK 416 is currently being used in combat by US forces and is employed by LE.
- Some Army units are currently fielding thgis weapon in combat in Iraq.
- I have heard directly from members of one large east coast SWAT team that has dumped their HK G36 (because they lost zero due to heating of the composite parts) in favor of the new HK 416.
See here to learn more about the HK 416:
HK official site:
http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/hk416.html
HK community site - this includes story and images of combat use of HK416 by US army in Iraq:
http://www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm
Further US SOCOM has officially adopted the FN SCAR in 5.56 and 7.62 NATO to replace it's M4s, and other SOCOM people use the HK 416 as well - both are again in combat alrready.. So there are two modern in use replacements to the M16/M4 right now - though limited in quantity.
Since its based on the familar M16 pattern the HK416 would be a great easy to convert to Assault Rifle for regular US troops who could use a more modern, more reliable and easier to service weapon. Of course we can still debate 5.56, 6.8 and 7.62 ccalibers endlessly after that. :)
-
Geeez why do Western assault rifles.... made in USA, Israel, and Germany have to be sooo complicated. It would be best if US army equip themselves with AK-47s and they only cost $40. AK's have been around for 57 years and its is as reliable as a Japanese car. Soak an AK-47 on salt water or sand and it still works!
If they don't like $40 cheap imitations, they can issue these:cool:
(http://www.pianoladynancy.com/funnypics_toons/gold6_ak47.jpg)
(http://www.ak-47.us/pic/Gold-AK47/gold-002.jpg)
(http://www.ak-47.us/pic/Gold-AK47/gold-004.jpg)
(http://tanyajessica.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/greggoldchair2ak47s.jpg.w300h372.jpg)
-
Originally posted by tikky
Geeez why do Western assault rifles.... made in USA, Israel, and Germany have to be sooo complicated.
White Collar Welfare
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The HK 416 is currently being used in combat by US forces and is employed by LE.
It would be nice to get my hands on one of those 416s. :) But I have to admit I have never had a problem with my M4. I believe the 416 is better, but I have no complaints when it comes to the M4.
I had an M4/6.8 for a few months awhile back, that was a really nice weapon.
Now a 416 in 6.8 - oooh baby. :)
The guys I have talked to who have been exposed to the SCAR have nothing but good things to say about them as well.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
White Collar Welfare
Can you explain this comment some more?
-
Originally posted by tikky
AK's have been around for 57 years and its is as reliable as a Japanese car. Soak an AK-47 on salt water or sand and it still works!
It's also heavy, about as well balanced as a fat drunk chick on iceskates, and less accurate than my d*ck past 150 meters.
The Czechs have a long history of being awesome gun makers - and even they couldn't make the thing accurate (which makes sense - the reason it is so damn reliable after exposure to sand, dirt, whatever is that there is enough room inside the thing to hide Funked and 2 of his hos, and the action would still cycle clean).
-
The M-16 has been the longest used US service rifle. Maybe there is a reason for that?
If you ever have studied the M16, you would know that it's not because of it's reliability or accuraccy. There has to be another reason.
-
funny thing here is that everyone states how the M16 is unreliable and not accurate... ive never had a problem with any M16/M4 that ive been issued... and for accuracy, i can plink 300m targets with ease (foxhole, prone position, standing, sitting..) M16s can be a handful if you dont take care of it while in the field.. for example, if you use CLP (cleaning lube) in the desert enviroments like Iraq and Afghanistan you will get sand buildup on the bolt carrier.. and another trouble area is the buffer well in the stock, you have to keep that area cleaned and dry (alot of soldiers overlook that area).
design a way to beat the IEDs and now your talking..
-
Actually, when my shooting buddy went into the National Guard as an E-5 his platoon went to Evjemoen (sp?) for a NATO training exercise. He said the best rifle he has EVER fired was the Finnish AK-47 firing LaPua ammo. You guys can rip on it all you want, because it's stupid to try and do so.
I love my HK USP 45 w/ 12 round mags.
-
Looks like we are running into the same type of comparisons that WW2 pilots made. Everyone has anecdotal evidence showing that one type of weapon is better than the other.
The M-16 is one of the most accurate assault rifles made. I have seen charts listing the mil accuracy compared against other rifles. Its been a long time, but if I remember correctly, M-16s fresh from the factory shot 4-5 mils, while other rifles like the Styr Aug shot around 10 mils.
Using the proper ammunition and full length barrels, the 5.56mm round does produce massive wounds against unprotected bodies. As we all know, when an assault rifle round enters the body, it flips 180 degrees and travels backwards. This is because the bullets center of mass is shifted rearward due to the aerodynamic shape of the bullet. An AK-47 round for example, enters the body, travels a short distance, flips 180 degrees, then exits the body. A 5.56mm round enters the body, begins to flip, but breaks up into several pieces, all causing substantial damage.
But I agree, with our army being made up of citizen-soldier teenagers, we need a reliable rifle that is more suited for urban combat. The M-16 failed the soldiers of Jessica Lyndes convoy. I certainly don't believe that they weren't cleaning their rifles either. Who goes to war and neglects their rifle within the first few weeks?
Seems like most people agree 6.8mm would be a good round. But how about a rifle that will fire with sand and grit? It wouldn't need to do that many times, just enough to get people out of an emergency.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You really have turned whacko leftist - now your're bashing Isreal and essentialy comparing them to Nazis. WTF is up with you Mike?
Ya know...I wasn't going to say anything...but now that the subject has been broached...I'd like to know too...Funked has been in a funky mood for a while now...it seems to me.
Regarding the subject of this thread...
There have been about a bazillion designs since Eugene Stoner's original AR design came out that have improvements. Some of those new designs were his. The AR has come a long LONG way since the '50s too. I am the proud owner of an "M4-gery", it is nearly flawless in design. Very few improvements can be made that don't also have drawbacks. All aspects of weapon design are compromises anyhow, sacrifice weight for ruggedness, or durability for accuracy, etc. One of the most common complaints about the design is the "direct gas" geting into the action rather than being filtered somewhat by a piston. Of course this decreases the reciprocating assembly drastically, thereby reducing felt-recoil and improving accuracy. The only real operational problem compared to some competitors is the need to clean the weapon every thousand rounds or so (some designs can go much longer than that reliably), but most active duty guys are trained to clean them far more often than that.
The biggest problem in my opinion with the M16/M4's currently being used is the ballistics of the 5.56. But to switch over the 6.8, for example, would cost far more than it is worth. It might not be a nice thing to consider but we have NEVER issued the best possible weapon (price being no object) to our run-of-the-mill units, it always comes down to what the armed services can afford, like it or not.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Can you explain this comment some more?
Pork Barrel
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
But to switch over the 6.8, for example, would cost far more than it is worth.
If I read the article I linked correctly, they said the changeover only required a new barrel and possibly a stronger spring in the magazines.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Who goes to war and neglects their rifle within the first few weeks?
Supply types who have never been in an infantry unit. The guy who fought to the death and really made the Iraqis pay came from an infantry unit origionally. So did the other soldier in the engagement who won the SS. Non-combat arms people, out of their element, do stupid stuff all the time.
[/B]But how about a rifle that will fire with sand and grit?[/B]
The tighter the weapon is built, the more accurate it is. The trick is to keep the junk from ever getting in the works, which is what they are talking about with the HK -4s/16s.
The G36 is an awesome weapon. Accurate, great balance, very easily controlled recoil in full auto, very resistant to dirt/sand/dust. I'd still take a G36 over the HK -4/-16.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I have heard directly from members of one large east coast SWAT team that has dumped their HK G36 (because they lost zero due to heating of the composite parts) in favor of the new HK 416.
Sorry but I don't buy it. There has to be other reasons. I've worked with Germans and Brits in very, very hot environments (hotter than you are going to find anywhere in the U.S.) who were packing G36s and never heard of something like this happening.
And if they lost zero we would have heard about it - no doubt about it.
My first *guess* would be that it was probably the 'import optics' issue with the G36. The German and some non-German military issue guns have the top-of-the line optics built into the gun. The import version, which is what U.S. LE uses, does not. With the new HK weapons, the SWAT guys can easily have top-of-the line optics.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If I read the article I linked correctly, they said the changeover only required a new barrel and possibly a stronger spring in the magazines.
New barrel/upper. And the 6.8 hits hard. The 5.56 is no slouch (many guys who complain of stopping power are *****ing when they wing a guy in the elbow at 300m at the corner of a building, and the guy staggers away - not a reasonable ***** IMHO - true, blowing his arm off with an M14 would be nice, but that doesn't mean the 5.56 is 'too weak'), but there is a noticable difference.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The M-16 is one of the most accurate assault rifles made. I have seen charts listing the mil accuracy compared against other rifles. Its been a long time, but if I remember correctly, M-16s fresh from the factory shot 4-5 mils, while other rifles like the Styr Aug shot around 10 mils.
That is for sure. The -4 and -16 (within their effective ranges according to the barrel used) are 'tack drivers'. And you can rapid fire them and keep the rounds on target in a way that you could never manage with an AK-47 (now the -74 is a different story).
A trained shooter could put 6, 8 rounds into the torso of an enemy at 200 meters with a -16 very, very quickly. He could probably do the same with an AK-47 but only at much shorter ranges.
Now extrapolate that into a squad vs. squad engagement. Your 5.56 armed guys are going to put down a much greater volume of fire, with a great deal more accuracy. Just talking about the rifles of course, but it does make a difference.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
New barrel/upper.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same 6.8. The 6.8 ARC is still a relatively unknown wildcat idea. I don't know if anyone has even built one as yet. Seems like it might be a cheap way to get some more smack out of the .223 guns.
The one mentioned in the article that would only require a new barrel:
6.8mm in a .223 case will not equal the 6.8mm SPC, but will still out perform any assault rifle round in current use, and the only modification needed is a new barrel.
Not a quantum leap but a nice improvement in energy for just a new barrel and necked-up ammunition.
Trajectory is pretty close too out to 300 yards.
M193 5.56 (55gr) MV 3200 ME 1250 300yd V/E 2143/561
6.8 ARC (125 gr) MV 2438 ME 1649 300 yd V/E 1818/971
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not sure we're talking about the same 6.8. The 6.8 ARC is still a relatively unknown wildcat idea. I don't know if anyone has even built one as yet. Seems like it might be a cheap way to get some more smack out of the .223 guns.
I was able to google Barrett M468 which uses 6.8mm ARC: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-13416.html
Oh.. I probably shouldn't use 'to google' because it could violate Google's trademark in a way they don't wish it to be used. Shame on me.
(http://www.barrettrifles.com/images/m468.jpg)
(why does it appear like a 3D model...)
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not sure we're talking about the same 6.8. The 6.8 ARC is still a relatively unknown wildcat idea. I don't know if anyone has even built one as yet.
6.8mm 'M4s' have been used in the field already. Take a normal M4, and swap the upper and the barrel with the 6.8mm weapon. I used one for about 4 months. It was part of a field test program. I was not a 'rare' or 'special' case mind you - they went to several different units and issued several weapons to each unit.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
6.8mm 'M4s' have been used in the field already. Take a normal M4, and swap the upper and the barrel with the 6.8mm weapon. I used one for about 4 months.
So, how did you like it?
New barrel/upper. And the 6.8 hits hard. The 5.56 is no slouch (many guys who complain of stopping power are *****ing when they wing a guy in the elbow at 300m at the corner of a building, and the guy staggers away - not a reasonable ***** IMHO - true, blowing his arm off with an M14 would be nice, but that doesn't mean the 5.56 is 'too weak'), but there is a noticable difference.
The only thing is that when dealing with those suicidal terrorists, I would rather be sure the enemy is incapacitated or dead than suddenly turn out to be able to blow up half a squad with a nade, when they come to check out the area. It doesn't look good on the news if you pop wounded terrorists in the head from point blank range just to be sure.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The only thing is that when dealing with those suicidal terrorists, I would rather be sure the enemy is incapacitated or dead than suddenly turn out to be able to blow up half a squad with a nade, when they come to check out the area. It doesn't look good on the news if you pop wounded terrorists in the head from point blank range just to be sure.
exactly what the problem is.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If I read the article I linked correctly, they said the changeover only required a new barrel and possibly a stronger spring in the magazines.
The 5.56 is used in many other weapons, the M249 primarilly but certainly not exclusively, there's a decided cost and maintenance/supply advantage of having the entire armed forces using only four catridges (5.56/7.62/.50/9mm).
There's the manufacturing costs of the barrels and upper assemblies as well as the ammunition then the labor costs of retrofitting millions of firearms.
I know a lot of enthusiasts who are running the 6.8 on personal weapons, there for a while it was a concern that nobody was going to manufacture the ammo, right now it looks like the 6.8 will survive after all. But I doubt the military will adopt it soon.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
6.8mm 'M4s' have been used in the field already. Take a normal M4, and swap the upper and the barrel with the 6.8mm weapon. I used one for about 4 months. It was part of a field test program. I was not a 'rare' or 'special' case mind you - they went to several different units and issued several weapons to each unit.
6.8 ARC or 6.8 SPC (6.8x43mm)?
The 6.8 ARC is a necked-up .223 case. Only difference is the bullet, essentially. That's why it only needs a new barrel.
The 6.8 SPC is a .30 Remington, shortened to fit the AR15 magazine OAL.[PNC] This is slightly larger in diameter than .223, so a new bolt is required. That's why you'd need a new upper.
If I'm wrong, that's fine. I just thought the 6.8 ARC didn't need an upper.
-
You've got a point Toad. But it is the SPC which has the biggest advantage over the 5.56NATO. Check out this thread (whole freaking site really), these guys know as much detail about such matters as many here know about the DB-605 variants used in the Bf109 series :D
http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=282708
-
I carry an AR-15 everyday at work. I shoot a couple thousand rounds through it every year. The AR-15/ M-16 is a good weapon..but it's reliability is somewhat hit and miss. Main problems are double feeds and failure of the bolt to seat caused by carbon fouling. AR's MUST be kept clean or they WILL jam..no question about it. But for a service rifle stripping it down every couple hundred rounds just isn't always feasible...hence the bad reputation the rifle has gotten over the years. Many improvements have been made..but the old M-14 is probably still the best rifle we ever had in service.
But for what it was designed for...a high capacity rifle with a lighter weight and made shorter for ease in close quarters fighting it is an excellent weapon. I actually think it's better than the MP5 for close quarters with the collapsible stock option because you get a higher velocity bullet with better penetration. Most bullet resistant vests will stop the 9mm round...the 5.56 will cut through kevlar like butter if the trauma plates aren't in there.
We took one of our old vests and shot it with the 9 mm and the 5.56. The 9mm round didn't pierce it..the 5.56 went through the vest and took a big chunk out of the RR ties that were behind it about another 50 feet.
-
Frankly I think the Mini 14 with a composite stock is a better rifle than the M-16 or it's variants. The chambering is another issue. While I am a fan of lightweight I also understand that penetration is a good thing too. I think a round that has a heavier bullet, like the 270 or even 243 in a case just slightly larger than the current 5.56 round would be optimal. You'd still have a decent lightweight round for more ammo for the infantry to carry and better ballistics and penetration. The mini14 slightly scaled up would do nicely in that regard. No matter what, there will be resistance from other NATO members, as they may not want to change weapons systems to make it a more universal round.
I don't like the bullpup configuration for standard infantry use. I am old school enough to think there are times when some bayonet work would be useful. The bullpup would be outstanding for more casual use like for armor crewmen instead of the old M3 grease gun or a cut down but still awkward M-4. If it used the same round and magazine that's a great plus for logistics.