|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Sept 10, 2013 8:47:06 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 10, 2013 10:29:03 GMT 12
Part of the problem is the 5.56mm calibre and the rounds "lightness". It doesn't have the real reach out to 500m plus and that was what was needed in Afghanistan. NZDF has partially addressed that issue by replacing the Minimi C9 5.56mm with the Minimi 7.62mm and by issuing designated shooters with 7.62mm rifles. The Steyrs and other 5.56mm personal weapons are not battle rifles like the SLR so maybe they need to go back to the battle rifle concept especially as much of the body armour worn today will stop a 5.56mm round. |
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Sept 10, 2013 12:15:35 GMT 12
If I am correct in my assertion that a .303 was .303" or 7.7mm; and a 3006 was .3006 or 7.64mm? And as a corrollary - the .222 was 5.64mm - just as a comparison. I am not sure about the thirty-O-six - if that was a calibre designation or not...
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 10, 2013 13:21:38 GMT 12
30-06 is the US .30 calibre round from 1906. It is the same as the 7.62mm. Actually the 7.62 mm is the European or metric version of the 30-06. The British .303" is 7.7mm and the .308" I think is either 7.92 or 8mm. Also the length of the round is important. NATO use the 7.62mm x 51 round where as the Russian round is 7.62mm x 39. So there is less charge in the Russian round and therefore range is a bit shorter. You can't use NATO rounds in a stock standard AK47 but I think you could possibly use Russian rounds in a SLR although I am unsure about that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair5517 on Sept 10, 2013 20:45:02 GMT 12
Remington have introduced the 6.8 SPC as a step up from the 5.56 without the weight and heft of the 7.62. I've used it as a hunting round with ballistic tipped bullets and it is a fabulous round; fast, flat with excellent terminal ballistics!
I believe the US military experimented with it in the early to mid 2000s....
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 10, 2013 23:04:45 GMT 12
Back in 2009 or 2010 the cabinet approved around $35 million for the Defence Scientic people to do a comprehensive test and analysis of small arms, from medium mgs down, for NZDF with the aim of finding the best weapons that suited NZDFs needs. About 1 year - 18 months later and the testing etc., hadn't been finished and another $3 million was needed to complete the project. By the time the Cabinet made a decision (no) most of the scientists & technicians on the project had left Defence. So don't know what theend result is / was.
The main unspoken problem in al lthe discussion between 5.56mm and 7.62mm is a common standardised round that has the light weight of the 5.56 and the power of the 7.62. After WW2 and the formation of NATO the poms and French wanted to standardize the small arms rounds because Europe had a variety of differing calibres. Originally the poms suggested the 7mm but the US had so much 30 cal ammo after the war they wouldn't agree. From what I can figure it was during the 1950s that they agreed to 7.62mm for battle rifles and light machine guns. Even today this issue still hasn't been decided.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair5517 on Sept 10, 2013 23:37:25 GMT 12
Jesus wept.... they spent $35M in 18 months and hadn't finished, then needed more money?! FFS, no wonder the NZDF are in such a parlous state!
The Yanks had many different calibres - 30.06, 30 carbine, .45ACP and the USMC also used the M.1 in .30 until the Garand was standardised that an mountain of surplus ammo was inevitable!!
The 6.8 was Remingtons answer to the question of an intermediate round between the .223 and the .308, one which also was theoretically cost effective as the changes to the M-16 were, in effect, minor with a new barrel/chamber and bolt and bolt carrier all that was required. I don't know if it was followed through; I'm guessing not but I have heard that U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan and other such places use it and like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 11, 2013 20:38:43 GMT 12
I am sure it was $35 million because $3.5 million surely wouldn't cover the costs. I could have the decimal point in the wrong place but it covered everything, Medium & Light MGs, rifles, pistols, grenades, SMGs etc. I know that the NZ Army got Automatic Grenade Launchers which Aussie soldiers haven't got and are jealous about. Whether that came from that review I don't know. But they were going into the research and testing big time. A lot more than what was done previously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 22:05:25 GMT 12
I do like the look of some of their new equipment. Such as the GMG (grenade machine gun) and the new LMT .308 marksmen rifle. Nice quality pieces Of kit I reckon.  |
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Sept 11, 2013 22:58:55 GMT 12
Shouldve kept the good old SLR  Now that was a weapon that you knew you'd just fired, and I bet the recipient of said firing would know he's just been hit! Great for arm strength too with parades...preeeeeeesent.....aaaaaaarms!  |
|
|
|
Post by conman on Sept 12, 2013 21:05:21 GMT 12
Maybe a split purchase of 416's and 417's then you can equip as required for the combat environment , or as an alternative the FN SCAR-L and SCAR-H, I can't imagine that you would always require the 7.62 round
|
|
|
|
Post by noooby on Sept 13, 2013 8:37:05 GMT 12
I'm with you jonesy, I loved my SLR when I was in the RNZAF. I just wish I could have kept it when I left recruit course Very accurate, even with the standard flip up sight. Even dplit the target in two when I hit the wooden post up the center of it. lol. Steyr would never do that, but then the theory at the time was that it took more people to retrieve wounded soldiers and treat them, than if they were dead, so you would remove more people from action. |
|
|
|
Post by pjw4118 on Sept 13, 2013 12:00:20 GMT 12
Very interesting discussion. I have always thought big is best. I currently enjoy a 45.70. The sound is enough to scare the baddies away but the rounds are a bit pricey and run out of legs after 500 yards, but they sure do eat up anything they meet on the way.
Always thought the Steyer a bit girlie for parades , you really need a bit of substance to heft around.
My old AK47 7.62 for me as a good all rounder
|
|
|
|
Post by smithy on Sept 13, 2013 16:28:11 GMT 12
Maybe NZ might follow Norway? They have gone with HK416s and a number of HK417s (for marksman work). My brother-in-law is just about to go into the army over there having finished the interviewing process a few months back, and will be issued a 416 which I believe he's rather excited about.
Although knowing how NZ likes to go for the cost effective option, are M-4s on the cards?
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 13, 2013 16:41:33 GMT 12
I don't know the breakdown of the $35m, but we have got the following small arms and associated accessories, such as scopes: Shotguns (Benelli M3NZ)for all three services. Marksman Rifles (HK417) 7.62mm Minimi LSW, not sure if the Navy is using these, but air and army are. Apparently a GMG, but haven't seen that. Presumably the $35m also covered the purchase and trials of the Steyr upgrades. If they want to go for a 7.62 rifle, they could do worse than to purchase HK417s for everyone, but replace the S&B 4-16 mil dot with an ACOG. Might be a bit pricy though. The GMG can be mounted on the Pinzgauers if needed. There is video on the NZDF Youtube channel of the Army using them at Waiouru. The NZSAS Pinzgauers have them plus all the other things that hang on and off the NZSAS Pinzgauers. |
|
|
|
Post by conman on Sept 14, 2013 11:34:46 GMT 12
I think the US found the 416 to be vastly superior to the M4 in terms of reliability as measured by stoppages in a hostile operating environment, the SAS use M4's don't they ?
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 14, 2013 21:29:56 GMT 12
According to Wikipedia the NZSAS use the M4. Read a really good book about the NZSAS earlier in the year. NZSAS: The First 50 Years by Ron Crosby.
|
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Sept 14, 2013 22:59:54 GMT 12
The Army L119 light gun must be due for replacement after 27 years in service , it will be interesting to see if the Army upgrades to a decent 155mm gun like most modern armies or replaces it with a heavy 120mm mortar.
With the Navy there's no point having the 7.62 mm LSW minimi when you have the heavier M2HB 50. Cal with its bigger punch .
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 14, 2013 23:42:44 GMT 12
Well the Navy does /did have the C9 5.56mm Minimi for the shore platoon on the frigates so I may think that they would get the 7.62mm minimi as well. Standardisation across NZDF. The 5.56mm minimis will be put into storage so maybe the navy will keep some. They do still use the SLR for firing the gun messanger line.
With regard to the artillery the question has to be, given that the focus of NZDF is changing to a Joint Amphibious Force, would 155mm guns be the right option of artillery for NZ? Imho it is to large and would be to restrictive in the long term. The L119 is a light gun meaning easily transportable by air ground etc.,plus it is a howitzer meaningit can deliver plunging fire. It also has a 360 degree traverse. If the longer reach or big bang of the 155 is needed then extended range and / or enhanced projectiles could be ustilised. Imho the L119 should be replaced with something similar that will able to use the new extended range and enhanced projectile ammo, is light enough to be lifted by a NH90, easily moved on the ground and is versatile. The army has the 81mm mortars and there are enhanced rounds for that as well. I think the 120mm mortars would be troublesome because of their weight. They have to be devanned from a vehicle, setup and then fired. I feel that they don't have the versatility or fire power of the L119 Light Howitzer.
|
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Sept 15, 2013 12:27:49 GMT 12
Don't know if weight is a issue for new light weight 155 mm M777 howitzers at 3420 kg and the new NH90 having a max under slung load of 4000 kg . This sort of makes the l119 obsolete which is probably the reason the Ozzies are replacing their Hamel guns with the M777.
Both the 120 mm Mortar and 105 mm light gun are short on range the advantage of the 120mm is its use on high defilade targets and quick volume of fire it's lighter and has smaller logistical trail.In some parts of Afgan it was found the Valley floor to narrow and sheer slopes for the 105 mm guns to elevate.
The advantage of the 105mm is its HE round is more accurate and effective compared to the 120mm mortar round .
|
|
Now that was a weapon that you knew you'd just fired, and I bet the recipient of said firing would know he's just been hit! Great for arm strength too with parades...preeeeeeesent.....aaaaaaarms! 
