|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 12, 2013 12:19:37 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Feb 12, 2013 17:05:23 GMT 12
Cheaper to buy new.
|
|
|
|
Post by DragonflyDH90 on Feb 12, 2013 18:15:08 GMT 12
FN or Heckler & Koch 7.62mm assault rifle. H&K have a better range of equipment.
|
|
|
|
Post by keroburner on Feb 12, 2013 21:44:50 GMT 12
What about a M4 type platform in 6.8 caliber? Thats why it came about, as a good inbetween for the 5.56 and 7.62Nato.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 13, 2013 9:51:05 GMT 12
What about a M4 type platform in 6.8 caliber? Thats why it came about, as a good inbetween for the 5.56 and 7.62Nato. In theory yes, but at moment no-one has really standardised with it and if we went with it we'd have a hell of an ammo logistics problem in far off places. If NATO stops arguing about it, goes for it, standardises it and implements it yes. One of my arguments for going back to 7.62mm for rifles is that have single type ammo for MAG58, LSW and rifles so not having to carry two ammo loads into combat (of course 9mm for pistols as well). Back when I did my Recruit course at Wigram that was an advantage the SLR, M60s and GPMG had in that they fired same round. Of course we also had 9mm for the Sterling L2A3 and Browning pistols. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 13, 2013 13:47:25 GMT 12
I'd suggest they'll stay with 5.56 for the main weapon. Whilist the ranges in Afghan may be out past 300m at times. In Iraq they were a lot closer, perhaps this is the reason for the large scale repalcement of the M4 over the M-16 in the US army.
For those ranges out past 300m a designated marksman with a 7.62mm refle (SR-25 etc) in each platoon and a 7.62mm GPMG would be the weapons of choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Feb 13, 2013 16:55:22 GMT 12
I'd suggest they'll stay with 5.56 for the main weapon. Whilist the ranges in Afghan may be out past 300m at times. In Iraq they were a lot closer, perhaps this is the reason for the large scale repalcement of the M4 over the M-16 in the US army. For those ranges out past 300m a designated marksman with a 7.62mm refle (SR-25 etc) in each platoon and a 7.62mm GPMG would be the weapons of choice. Last paragraph is current reality. |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 13, 2013 16:57:55 GMT 12
It was not just the extended range Calum, but also the energy or power of the round and its ability to penetrate body armour and still take out the target.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 13, 2013 21:18:32 GMT 12
Of course we could buy several weapon types, & issue them as operational required instead of this s**t about one size must fit all conflicts. When did you last see someone play golf with one club, & that is only a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Feb 13, 2013 21:23:01 GMT 12
Of course we could buy several weapon types, & issue them as operational required instead of this s**t about one size must fit all conflicts. When did you last see someone play golf with one club, & that is only a game. Logistical nightmare....but the small quantities needed for NZDF, may be the way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 14, 2013 13:10:37 GMT 12
Of course we could buy several weapon types, & issue them as operational required instead of this s**t about one size must fit all conflicts. When did you last see someone play golf with one club, & that is only a game. Logistical nightmare....but the small quantities needed for NZDF, may be the way to go. NZDF has approx 13,000 steyrs and you don't want to mix and match like a golf set because even at NZDF size it would be a nightmare. Would also be expensive. It's exactly about a one size fits all for standardisation across the board for basic rifles. Yes you get different weapons for specialised roles, but not for the basic rifle. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 14, 2013 13:33:52 GMT 12
I still can't see the NZDF moving from 5.56 as the calibre in their basic infantry weapon unless the NATO/US do.
Accuracy with 5.56 is vastly higher for the average user than with 7.62mm.
I've shot the SLR/Steyr AK and M4 and I could a lot more with the 5.56 weapons than with SLR or AK.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair5517 on Feb 14, 2013 21:23:40 GMT 12
I've shot the SLR/Steyr AK and M4 and I could a lot more with the 5.56 weapons than with SLR or AK. Really? I found the SLR very, very accurate indeed at most sane ranges with terminal ballistics that were far in excess of that offered by the AR-15. Agreed that the AK is hit and miss, but the Valmet which is based on the AK is a much more serious proposition. I've not used the M4 so can't comment on that, but that said, I only ever hunted with an SLR once, but used the Colt quite often on goat eradication. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 14, 2013 21:44:08 GMT 12
I too was much more accurate with the Steyr then the SLR. I hated the SLR
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 14, 2013 21:57:46 GMT 12
I far prefered the SLR to the Steyr and as far as I was concerned the M16 was rubbish. But I suppose also it is what you are used too and trained on. That's another thing, accuracy is something that can be taught to most people. Not to the accuracy of a sniper. I read somewhere a long time ago that the British Army used to teach it's troops to be able to fire the old Lee Enfield .303s at a rate of 20 rounds a minute with very good accuracy out to 300 yards. The USMC states that every marine is a rifleman first and whatever trade next. Maybe that is what NZDF needs to concentrate on in initial training and continual training. Shooting skills.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 15, 2013 10:40:54 GMT 12
I've shot the SLR/Steyr AK and M4 and I could a lot more with the 5.56 weapons than with SLR or AK. Really? I found the SLR very, very accurate indeed at most sane ranges with terminal ballistics that were far in excess of that offered by the AR-15. Agreed that the AK is hit and miss, but the Valmet which is based on the AK is a much more serious proposition. I've not used the M4 so can't comment on that, but that said, I only ever hunted with an SLR once, but used the Colt quite often on goat eradication. I won't argue about the ballistics but out to 200m for average shooters the 5.56 weapons are much more accurate. Things like the weight, less recoil make for better results (Again I stress this is for the average person/solider/sailor/airman, but I'd expect he same results for an experienced shooter) Another advantage is the number of rounds you can carry, from what I understand the usual for most western forces is 10 X 28/29 round mags for a 5.56 weapon (M-16/M-4/Steyr etc ). Whereas the standard load for a infantryman with a SLR was around 10 X 20 round mags. Noting that in combat something like less than 5 % of rounds actually hit the target they aimed at more bullets (not sure where I read this but it sounds plausible) I loved shooting the SLR, probably more so than the Steyr, but I was better shot with Steyr. The M4 is also nice and very accurate. It was mainly because of the optics on the weapon I was shooting. |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 15, 2013 12:31:09 GMT 12
There is supposed to be a new lightweight 7.62mm round out now, but don't know much about it. The new 7.62mm rifles have optics on them so theoretically the accuracy should improve. I know I would've been a better shot on the SLR with optics like the Steyr had. One thing that disappoint me about the SLR was that I thought the bayonet was to short. The other important point to note about the SLR (FN FAL) and the M14 is that they were what is termed as 'battle rifles'. These are rifles that fire full power rifle rounds such as the NATO 7.62 x 51mm round. Two modern rifles that fire the NATO 7.62 x 51mm round: Heckler & Koch HK417FN SCAR®-H STD |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 15, 2013 17:35:24 GMT 12
Until NATO move the from 5.56 I can't see the NZDF moving away from this round.
I still think I'd rather carry 290 5.56 rounds and shoot a M4 rather than 200 and shoot a 7.62 rifle. Even using the HK-417 I still reckon I'd hit more with the M4, especially if someone is shooting at me (thankfully I've never been in that situation)
My problem with the SLR was always the iron sights, very crude.
|
|
|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on Feb 17, 2013 17:32:01 GMT 12
I came across an article in the Australia Defence magazine more 18mths ago and it talked about the big bum fight between the US, the Brits and the rest of NATO. Any new round is either going to be one of the following: .270, .338 is currently been used in most new sniper weapon systems, .303 and of course the good old .308 (7.62mm NATO). I'm leaded to believe that NZ may go it alone (A very brave decision by MOD/NZDF) and chose 7.62mm, but in saying that a couple of NATO countries are thinking of heading back to 7.62mm.
Because of the 5.56mm lack of stopping power at longer ranges in the Gan and one of the case studies I have seen that in one fire fight the Talban held up a US SF team for a few hours and after they had taken the En position. The US guys had found the En bodies were full of holes but 5.56 rds. Had not penetrated the lays silk clothes that they were wearing (Note the Monguls used to wear silk clothes to stop arrows and spear attacks penetrated the body.
When Canada looked at replacing their FN's they came very close to getting a 7.62x39 weapon system aka the AK-47, but this had upset the Yanks and canuks got the Canadian version of the M16-A2.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Feb 17, 2013 21:39:39 GMT 12
It's been cancelled. The link is in my first post. It was also in Janes IHS. They may reissue it as different specs, but if you were going to stick with 5.56 why change the LSW to 7.62mm? It means you have to carry to separate ammo loads. If they move away from the Steyr it will be long term and the good ones can be either stored or resold. I think they would hold onto them. It wouldn't surprise me if they still have a goodly supply of the SLRs.
|
|
