Here's a pic from it showing current and possible future rifle/MG ammunition.
Full Version: Assault Rifle article revised
I have revamped my web article Assault Rifles and their Ammunition: History and Prospects to include more detail about early developments and bring the present situation up to date. URL is http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
Here's a pic from it showing current and possible future rifle/MG ammunition.
Here's a pic from it showing current and possible future rifle/MG ammunition.
Interesting article. I see that you've fired the EM-2. How does it compare to more modern rifles like the SA-80?
QUOTE(Bearded-Dragon @ Sun 18 May 2008 0724) 
Interesting article. I see that you've fired the EM-2. How does it compare to more modern rifles like the SA-80?
Quite well. It's very slim and handy, but feels solid. Recoil is more of a push than a sharp kick. I was aware of the action operating, which I wasn't with the FG 42 or any of the 5.56mm guns I tried (although I was even more so with the MKb 42). Sadly, however, I was only allowed a couple of rounds so I couldn't check its controllability in auto fire.
It just occurred to me - "EM-1/2" is some sort of "experimental" designation, right? Would the rifle have been the L1 instead of the modified FAL if actually procured?
Edit: Nevermind, reading through Tony's article I see it would have been the Rifle No. 9 Mk 1.
Follow-up question: If the US had adopted the .276 Pedersen before WW II, would it have been a suitable cartridge for the British rifle and thus a less controversial NATO standard round?
Edit: Nevermind, reading through Tony's article I see it would have been the Rifle No. 9 Mk 1.
Follow-up question: If the US had adopted the .276 Pedersen before WW II, would it have been a suitable cartridge for the British rifle and thus a less controversial NATO standard round?
QUOTE(BansheeOne @ Sun 18 May 2008 0936)
If the US had adopted the .276 Pedersen before WW II, would it have been a suitable cartridge for the British rifle and thus a less controversial NATO standard round?
The British would quite possibly have adopted it at the same time as the Americans. The British Army was very interested in the .276 Pedersen and did lots of testing. They even put the ammunition into production in the UK in the early 1930s. This died when the US Army cancelled it.
QUOTE(Tony Williams @ Sun 18 May 2008 1541)
Quite well. It's very slim and handy, but feels solid. Recoil is more of a push than a sharp kick. I was aware of the action operating, which I wasn't with the FG 42 or any of the 5.56mm guns I tried (although I was even more so with the MKb 42). Sadly, however, I was only allowed a couple of rounds so I couldn't check its controllability in auto fire.
I take there is little ammunition available nowadays for it? Was its production stopped when the weapon's development/adoption was abandoned? I was interested to see how small the weapon was, are you particularly tall? The only picture I've ever seen of someone holding an EM-2 was one of a squaddie and if I remember it correctly, it looked rather large in his arms, perhaps it was just because he was a bit short?
QUOTE(Bearded-Dragon @ Sun 18 May 2008 1228)
I take there is little ammunition available nowadays for it? Was its production stopped when the weapon's development/adoption was abandoned? I was interested to see how small the weapon was, are you particularly tall? The only picture I've ever seen of someone holding an EM-2 was one of a squaddie and if I remember it correctly, it looked rather large in his arms, perhaps it was just because he was a bit short?
The latest date for British ammo production in 7x43 was 1951 when the programme was cancelled. Except, for some reason, a small batch was made in 1970.
The EM-2 is 88.9cm (35 inches) long compared with 78cm for the L85, so it's fairly long for a bullpup, due to the 62.3cm barrel (24.5 inches). It's less bulky, though.
Tony,
Good article, thank you.
From your prognosis, it seems that we will be stuck with .223 for the foreseeable future. Should that be the case, would it be best that the UK Armed forces stick with the bullpup or side with our American and German colleagues, and go back to the conventional design Assault rifle?.
I fully realise that we have discussed the merits of both design philosophies; but I believe that the UK will have a choice of either the F 2000 or the Tavor should we decide to stick with a bullpup designed .223 rifle. There is also (as mentioned in Tony's article) the growth potential to consider in changing the upper receiver to accept the .270 calibre ammo. Is there a current design (in bullpup) that is capable of this?.
Charles
Good article, thank you.
From your prognosis, it seems that we will be stuck with .223 for the foreseeable future. Should that be the case, would it be best that the UK Armed forces stick with the bullpup or side with our American and German colleagues, and go back to the conventional design Assault rifle?.
I fully realise that we have discussed the merits of both design philosophies; but I believe that the UK will have a choice of either the F 2000 or the Tavor should we decide to stick with a bullpup designed .223 rifle. There is also (as mentioned in Tony's article) the growth potential to consider in changing the upper receiver to accept the .270 calibre ammo. Is there a current design (in bullpup) that is capable of this?.
Charles
QUOTE(Charles @ Sun 18 May 2008 2252)
From your prognosis, it seems that we will be stuck with .223 for the foreseeable future. Should that be the case, would it be best that the UK Armed forces stick with the bullpup or side with our American and German colleagues, and go back to the conventional design Assault rifle?.
I addressed this at the end of this article: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm
"However, the SA80 is now an old design which has not been manufactured for a long time, so the army is already thinking about its replacement. The current replacement date is 2020, as confirmed by a Minister of Defence in a Parliamentary answer in July 2006, and as of autumn 2007 this remains the planned date (although there is still some debate about whether 2020 is when they all have to be replaced by, or when the first of the replacement guns enters service). The timescale for specifying, short-listing, selecting, producing and issuing a new gun is so extended these days that one of the critical decisions - the calibre - has to be decided in 2008. Given that, it is inevitable that the new rifle will continue to be in 5.56x45 calibre: it is too soon to reap the benefits of any of the current US work into plastic-cased and caseless telescoped ammunition. It is also accepted by the army and the MoD that the short timescale, combined with the lack of any expertise in small-arms design in the UK, mean that the replacement will have to be more or less bought off the shelf from abroad rather than a new design.
So, what might be bought? Of the recent designs, the HK 416 and FN SCAR are the obvious leading competitors if a traditional layout is chosen. If the British retain their enthusiasm for bullpups, then the FN F2000 is a likely candidate although the Tavor is also worth a look. Another theoretical possibility has occurred to me, prompted by the fact that the army is delighted with the exceptional reliability of the SA80A2 and reluctant to accept anything which does not reach these standards. Since HK replaced most of the mechanical parts in producing the A2 rebuild, then why not drop the same mechanical design into a new, lighter, polycarbonate, bullpup stock? This would be a low-risk project which would enable the army to retain most of the spare parts and training/cleaning regimes for their current rifle, thereby saving them some cost and inconvenience. Perhaps the opportunity could be taken to improve some aspects of the ergonomics, such as the poor location of the fire selector switch. Are you listening, HK? It's all to play for!"
QUOTE
I fully realise that we have discussed the merits of both design philosophies; but I believe that the UK will have a choice of either the F 2000 or the Tavor should we decide to stick with a bullpup designed .223 rifle. There is also (as mentioned in Tony's article) the growth potential to consider in changing the upper receiver to accept the .270 calibre ammo. Is there a current design (in bullpup) that is capable of this?.
Steyr has said that they could produce a 6.8mm version of the AUG if required, but I don't know about the others. It's mainly down to the dimensions of the bolt face, I believe (although the FN F2000's ejection tube might be a factor as well).
There is still a mistake in the Roman Korsak name. By the way, according to the Pattern Room, Korsak's rifle is called EM I (I like Roman number 1).
As I understand it, the EM-1 was a rival to the EM-2, chambered in the same 7x43 ammo, but with a different action and made from stampings and pressings rather than machined.
The Korsac rifle was an earlier design (during WW2 I believe) in 7.92x57.
The Korsac rifle was an earlier design (during WW2 I believe) in 7.92x57.
QUOTE(Tony Williams @ Mon 19 May 2008 1556)
As I understand it, the EM-1 was a rival to the EM-2, chambered in the same 7x43 ammo, but with a different action and made from stampings and pressings rather than machined.
Right. QUOTE
The Korsac rifle was an earlier design (during WW2 I believe) in 7.92x57.
Korsak, not Korsac, you've made the same mistake over and over again! In my opinion it is not polite to mispronounce somebody name. And Roman Korsak, ex-employee of the PFB Radom factory name is K-O-R-S-A-K, Tony. And yes, the Korsak's EM I was a FG42-based bullpup design battle rifle fed by the 7,92 mm x 57 ammunition. Very interesting design, however with lots of flaws. By the way, some parts of the Korsak's rifle, especially the receiver were used in the EM 2 design.
Tony....Korsak is Polish. Korsac would be Hungarian or Czech.....the horror!
QUOTE(REMOV @ Mon 19 May 2008 2336)
Right. Korsak, not Korsac, you've made the same mistake over and over again! In my opinion it is not polite to mispronounce somebody name. And Roman Korsak, ex-employee of the PFB Radom factory name is K-O-R-S-A-K, Tony.
Sorry - it's corrected.
QUOTE
And yes, the Korsak's EM I was a FG42-based bullpup design battle rifle fed by the 7,92 mm x 57 ammunition. Very interesting design, however with lots of flaws. By the way, some parts of the Korsak's rifle, especially the receiver were used in the EM 2 design.
It seems a little more complicated than that. This is what I've just added to the article:
"There is some confusion over the EM-1, since two different weapons appear to have been assigned the same designation: the first was a full-powered (7.92x57) bullpup gun by Roman Korsak, a Pole working in England, the second EM-1 was a rival to the EM-2 in the same 7x43 calibre, which had a similar bullpup configuration but was made from stampings and pressings rather than machined."
QUOTE(Tony Williams @ Mon 19 May 2008 0549)
It is also accepted by the army and the MoD that the short timescale, combined with the lack of any expertise in small-arms design in the UK, mean that the replacement will have to be more or less bought off the shelf from abroad rather than a new design.
could you elaborate further my underlining? i am stupefied by it (it is not that i argue with you, is that it never crossed my mind. a nuclear power is unable to design small arms?)
QUOTE(Benjamin Etxaburu @ Tue 20 May 2008 1231)
could you elaborate further my underlining? i am stupefied by it (it is not that i argue with you, is that it never crossed my mind. a nuclear power is unable to design small arms?)
The last time anybody designed an automatic weapon from scratch in the UK was in the 1940s and resulted in the EM-2. The last time an existing design was adapted in the UK was in the 1970s, when the AR-18 action was shoehorned into the bullpup SA80. Nothing since then. There is nobody working in the UK with any experience or expertise is designing or even making automatic weapons, as far as I know.
Actually, there aren't many countries in Europe which have such expertise. Belgium with FN, Germany with HK, and Austria with Steyr (sort of - they seem to be content with just updating the AUG). Everybody else just buys guns from them.
Apart from some virtually hand-built sniper rifles, the only guns in which the UK has any current expertise seem to be 155mm artillery.
QUOTE(Tony Williams @ Tue 20 May 2008 1214)
Actually, there aren't many countries in Europe which have such expertise. Belgium with FN, Germany with HK, and Austria with Steyr (sort of - they seem to be content with just updating the AUG). Everybody else just buys guns from them.
SIG ---> RUAG?
QUOTE(Junior FO @ Tue 20 May 2008 1329)
SIG ---> RUAG?
OK, I forgot that one!
Edit to add: it's curious when you think about it, that the western European countries with active small-arms industries are among the smallest and most peaceable, with the exception of Germany (well, as far as size goes, anyway).
QUOTE(Tony Williams)
it's curious when you think about it, that the western European countries with active small-arms industries are among the smallest and most peaceable
commercial market. when country is big, main/lone customer is armed forces, with industrial monocultive. whatever army wants is right, there is enough business but in just huge unfrequent pulses (say every 20 years or so, perhaps in 5 year steps: now new pistol, within five years new submachinegun, etc). small country wants to enter arms industry, offers variety so there is higher probability of finding customers. also care more about and treats better the small customer. main exception to big country / low variety is united states, where civilian market is hugeQUOTE(Tony Williams @ Tue 20 May 2008 1414)
Actually, there aren't many countries in Europe which have such expertise. Belgium with FN, Germany with HK, and Austria with Steyr (sort of - they seem to be content with just updating the AUG). Everybody else just buys guns from them.
I am afraid it is not true. I do understand that for a Briton the Europe limits are on the Rhein river*, but from geographical point of view, the Europe is larger than this. So, there are more small arms manufacturers in Europe who sold their products, for example - Czech Czeska Zbrojovka (CZUB with their new assault rifles, submachine guns and underbarrel launcher), Croatian HS Produkt with the HS2000 pistol and VHS assault rifle, Serbian Zastava (well, the M21 is a mix of AK and Galil features, but they sold their weapons around the world), Swiss SIG Arms, Bulgarian Arsenal, Russian Izmash, KBP, TsNIITOChMASh and last but not least Polish Fabryka Broni, ZM Tarnow and OBR SM Tarnow, not to mentioned Romanian or Ukrainians smaller manufacturers. So the sentence "everybody else just buys guns from them" is far, far away from truth. In my opinion in the last few years the Europan small arms factories located in Russia, Serbia and Bulgaria sold more weapons than anyone else in this continent.
* - The example of such way of thinking is Michael Howard's book "War in European History". It is amazing, but for some British guys, even a historicans, the Europe consists of United Kingdom and Ireland - naturally! - plus France, Italy, Spain, half of Germany, part of Austria and... that's all. Oh, yeah, there is also gigantic Russia, the enemy, the enigma, located in the place usually signed hic sunt dracones.
FNH and HK have by a wide margin the best marketing, that distorts the perception of the market.
The Eastern European companies should create some extremely high quality rifles / sniper rifles to get a better reputation. And they should improve their public marketing with additional manpower in their target markets.
It's quite correct what you wrote about European history (although I'd say Oder, not Rhein as border) even concerning German history books.
The Eastern parts of Europe only really entered European history with Czar Peter the Great, and did so most often with armies participating in some wars.
Poland-Lithuania is rarely described in history books. Too vast land, not enough action, few people and cities...
The Balkans weren't "European" for a long time simply because of the Ottoman Empire.
The Eastern European companies should create some extremely high quality rifles / sniper rifles to get a better reputation. And they should improve their public marketing with additional manpower in their target markets.
It's quite correct what you wrote about European history (although I'd say Oder, not Rhein as border) even concerning German history books.
The Eastern parts of Europe only really entered European history with Czar Peter the Great, and did so most often with armies participating in some wars.
Poland-Lithuania is rarely described in history books. Too vast land, not enough action, few people and cities...
The Balkans weren't "European" for a long time simply because of the Ottoman Empire.
I did clarify in my next post that I was talking about western Europe.
You know it is about time that the Assault Rifle be rethought. Ammo is better, barrels are better, optics are better so shouldn't it be about the right time to come up with something like a Tavor or AUG that would be better that a conventional rifle?
QUOTE(Tony Williams @ Thu 22 May 2008 1938)
I did clarify in my next post that I was talking about western Europe.
So, please tell me, what was the sence of such division of the small arms manufacuters into the Western and Eastern Europe? And who were the "everybody else just buys guns from them"? Also only Western Europe countries? 
QUOTE(Tony Williams @ Tue 20 May 2008 1314)
Actually, there aren't many countries in Europe which have such expertise. Belgium with FN, Germany with HK, and Austria with Steyr (sort of - they seem to be content with just updating the AUG). Everybody else just buys guns from them.
Beretta????
QUOTE(Ariete! @ Fri 23 May 2008 1148)
Beretta????
Beretta has no real success with assault rifles beyond Italy's borders.
I don't know WHY, but Beretta assault rifles seem to interest/impress nobody.
QUOTE(lastdingo @ Fri 23 May 2008 1350)
Beretta has no real success with assault rifles beyond Italy's borders.
I don't know WHY, but Beretta assault rifles seem to interest/impress nobody.
I don't know WHY, but Beretta assault rifles seem to interest/impress nobody.
IIRC Beretta's AR70/90 was only introduced in 1990, and the end of the Cold War and the reduction of defence budgets might not have been an ideal time to introduce a new assault rifle on the international market. They had some modest success with the older BM59 and AR70/223, though.
IMHO the Beretta AR70/90 or the GIAT FAMAS both show that Italy and France certainly also have the expertise to design and manufacture good assault rifle designs. Maybe they just suck at marketing!
QUOTE(lastdingo @ Fri 23 May 2008 1350)
Beretta has no real success with assault rifles beyond Italy's borders.
Doesn't matter in this case. Tony's theory was that apart of some countries the Western Europe have not an expertise to design their own assault rifle. The only two large countries in Europe who have not their own small arms factory are... United Kingdom and Spain. The Italian Berreta have at least two types of their own 5,56-mm assault rifles - AR70/90 and AR(X)-160. QUOTE
I don't know WHY, but Beretta assault rifles seem to interest/impress nobody.
It is not true. The Beretta's assault rifles were sold in small quantities to Jordan, Malaysia for example.
QUOTE(REMOV @ Fri 23 May 2008 1217)
So, please tell me, what was the sence of such division of the small arms manufacuters into the Western and Eastern Europe? And who were the "everybody else just buys guns from them"? Also only Western Europe countries?
Well, USSOCOM has bought the FN SCAR and the HK 416...and yes, other western European countries have mostly bought FN or HK rifles recently.
Tony I have always wondered what the sight picture was like?
If you register with movietone they have a demo the SASC SMI firing the Mk9. Eh is in battle dress.
http://www.movietone.com/
Search for “The New Rifle” and select specific search and decade 1950. The 16/8/51 is the Mk9 being presented at Warminster and 25/01/54 is the FN being presented. On the second one the FN is fitted with the sight from the Mk9.
edited for large fingers
If you register with movietone they have a demo the SASC SMI firing the Mk9. Eh is in battle dress.
http://www.movietone.com/
Search for “The New Rifle” and select specific search and decade 1950. The 16/8/51 is the Mk9 being presented at Warminster and 25/01/54 is the FN being presented. On the second one the FN is fitted with the sight from the Mk9.
edited for large fingers
QUOTE(Briganza @ Fri 23 May 2008 1618)
Tony I have always wondered what the sight picture was like?
Sorry, I don't recall the specific details. I remember thinking that while the view wasn't as good as through a modern scope, it was better than I expected.
Bugger, I suppose there is no chance of you dropping down to Leeds and using you influence and being very nice to them so that we could look through the sight. I will buy you a coffee. 
The Beretta was bought in small numbers and didn't last long. No idea what happened to them other than the few that went to museums. I have actually shot the AR70 and it's not a bad little rifle but the top ejection is really quite tactically unhelpful (flying brass marking the shooter!)
The HK33 was universally despised in Malaysian service and all of them went to the US. If you have a HK33 build in the US, it is likely from a Malaysian parts kit. The M16A1 was considered much better.
Tony....I just found out that the eval team from the new rifle project back in the late 80s actually preferred the M16A2 over the AUG but Colt couldn't offer a meaningful license production agreement. They still can't......
Simon
The HK33 was universally despised in Malaysian service and all of them went to the US. If you have a HK33 build in the US, it is likely from a Malaysian parts kit. The M16A1 was considered much better.
Tony....I just found out that the eval team from the new rifle project back in the late 80s actually preferred the M16A2 over the AUG but Colt couldn't offer a meaningful license production agreement. They still can't......
Simon
QUOTE(Simon Tan @ Sat 24 May 2008 0708)
The Beretta was bought in small numbers and didn't last long. No idea what happened to them other than the few that went to museums. I have actually shot the AR70 and it's not a bad little rifle but the top ejection is really quite tactically unhelpful (flying brass marking the shooter!)
The HK33 was universally despised in Malaysian service and all of them went to the US. If you have a HK33 build in the US, it is likely from a Malaysian parts kit. The M16A1 was considered much better.
Tony....I just found out that the eval team from the new rifle project back in the late 80s actually preferred the M16A2 over the AUG but Colt couldn't offer a meaningful license production agreement. They still can't......
Simon
The HK33 was universally despised in Malaysian service and all of them went to the US. If you have a HK33 build in the US, it is likely from a Malaysian parts kit. The M16A1 was considered much better.
Tony....I just found out that the eval team from the new rifle project back in the late 80s actually preferred the M16A2 over the AUG but Colt couldn't offer a meaningful license production agreement. They still can't......
Simon
Even quite few sad examples of AR70 were purchased or given to Armed Forces of Malta. For some reason they seem to like Chinese AK-47 copy more... That I call an insult..
...and on pages 16/17 of this rather enthusiastic publication, you can see the evolution of SA80 (from A1 to the "ACOG, quad Picatinny, and suppressor" version)
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8F4E1958-BA..._01_may2008.pdf
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8F4E1958-BA..._01_may2008.pdf
Article revised again, with some more info about LSAT gathered at Eurosatory: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
Here's a pic of the LSAT ammo: a belt of plastic-cased plus a sectioned dummy of the caseless round on top.
Here's a pic of the LSAT ammo: a belt of plastic-cased plus a sectioned dummy of the caseless round on top.
QUOTE(Tony Williams @ Sun 22 Jun 2008 1606)
Article revised again, with some more info about LSAT gathered at Eurosatory: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
Here's a pic of the LSAT ammo: a belt of plastic-cased plus a sectioned dummy of the caseless round on top.
Here's a pic of the LSAT ammo: a belt of plastic-cased plus a sectioned dummy of the caseless round on top.
To the profane myself, those open fronts of the cartridges seem an invitation for dirt to enter.
QUOTE(sunday @ Sun 22 Jun 2008 1746)
To the profane myself, those open fronts of the cartridges seem an invitation for dirt to enter.
The mock-up machine gun belt is placed in wrong direction, in fact there are backs not fronts of the cartridges. The Tony's photo is confusing.
For waht it's worth, the AR-70/90 was not exactly consdiered very highly by the Italian troops either. Indeed, several units with teh fudns for it bought M4s an AUGs. More of a case of not being able to slight an economically significant Italian-based exporter (not so much of ARs, but of other, arguably better, guns).
On the G36, what I read soon after it emerged was very good, but not so popular now? Is that right??
On the G36, what I read soon after it emerged was very good, but not so popular now? Is that right??
HKs wundergwehr has horrible optics in the form of the standard piggyback Hensoldt which is made worse by its inability to hold a zero reliably. When you swap out with a p-rail, height over bore is excessive. Then you have the receiver softening issue as the barrel/trunnion gets hot etc.
US police depts. are junking their G36s (all of which get chopped for parts). Even more revealing is that HK is importing 0 (zero) G36s into the US in 2008.
All backed by HK's (in)famous customer service.
Simon
US police depts. are junking their G36s (all of which get chopped for parts). Even more revealing is that HK is importing 0 (zero) G36s into the US in 2008.
All backed by HK's (in)famous customer service.
Simon
QUOTE(Simon Tan @ Tue 24 Jun 2008 0629)
HKs wundergwehr has horrible optics in the form of the standard piggyback Hensoldt which is made worse by its inability to hold a zero reliably. When you swap out with a p-rail, height over bore is excessive. Then you have the receiver softening issue as the barrel/trunnion gets hot etc.
US police depts. are junking their G36s (all of which get chopped for parts). Even more revealing is that HK is importing 0 (zero) G36s into the US in 2008.
All backed by HK's (in)famous customer service.
US police depts. are junking their G36s (all of which get chopped for parts). Even more revealing is that HK is importing 0 (zero) G36s into the US in 2008.
All backed by HK's (in)famous customer service.
Interesting...this might also explain why many GER's in AFG prefer to carry G3's in field instead of G36 that is lighter, more ergonomic and shorter...
Well..in AFG, the 7.62x51 does have both reach (especially with optics) and performs much better against intermediate barriers. German DM3(?) ball is also much better in terms of terminal performance compared to US M80 ball due to its much thinner jacket. You don't want to wound the bugger, you want to give him an immediate dirt nap. Which is where stuff like MP7s and 4.6mm (.17 ferchrissakes...) doesn't engender confidence.
G3 isn't particularly accurate but it will hold minute of Derka @ 250-300m. It's also very tolerant of dusty conditions etc.
Simon
G3 isn't particularly accurate but it will hold minute of Derka @ 250-300m. It's also very tolerant of dusty conditions etc.
Simon
I got a chance to use a G36C a few months ago. I did not find the height of the aimpoint on the rail to be much of a problem. All I did was fire a few magazines however. I imagine the top sight on the standard G36 or G36K is a pain however.
Never fired the standard German G36s but I what I read seemed to state their optics were good quality for the time. I understand the Germans have gotten new aimpoint sights since then however.
I always hear all sorts of complaints from civilian shooters about HK but in my opinion their main purpose is for military/law enforcement gear and they do that well.
Never fired the standard German G36s but I what I read seemed to state their optics were good quality for the time. I understand the Germans have gotten new aimpoint sights since then however.
I always hear all sorts of complaints from civilian shooters about HK but in my opinion their main purpose is for military/law enforcement gear and they do that well.
Cheek weld isn't critical on a unitary reflex like the Aimpoint. Try it with a TA31.....fun......
The Hensoldts were crap then and they're crap now. Very tiny FOV...fogging issues, zero retention etc.
You should ask the Corps how much they dig HK..... they got screwed on their MP5s. Hey...you didn't know they had them!
Simon
The Hensoldts were crap then and they're crap now. Very tiny FOV...fogging issues, zero retention etc.
You should ask the Corps how much they dig HK..... they got screwed on their MP5s. Hey...you didn't know they had them!
Simon
QUOTE(Simon Tan @ Tue 24 Jun 2008 0820)
Well..in AFG, the 7.62x51 does have both reach (especially with optics) and performs much better against intermediate barriers. German DM3(?) ball is also much better in terms of terminal performance compared to US M80 ball due to its much thinner jacket. You don't want to wound the bugger, you want to give him an immediate dirt nap. Which is where stuff like MP7s and 4.6mm (.17 ferchrissakes...) doesn't engender confidence.
G3 isn't particularly accurate but it will hold minute of Derka @ 250-300m. It's also very tolerant of dusty conditions etc.
G3 isn't particularly accurate but it will hold minute of Derka @ 250-300m. It's also very tolerant of dusty conditions etc.
Ehh... well GER aren't in AFG at such a conditions that they really would need that extra range (very very strict ROE on shooting any thing else than for force protection at close ranges...). Maybe it is still the over all handling of G3 with current optics? 7.62 won't help either as you can't get trough wall of average local "mud" house with 5.56mm, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 or 7.62x53R either without using A LOT of ammo. Yes I've tested it...and that is one lessons learned that INS have took from previous wars. And that is also why every second/third INS in AFG is armed with RPG. But hey, don't believe me... ask CAN/UK/USA troops about it... And yes MP7 is very popular among GER troops in AFG...really is! Maybe because you don't have to shoot so often, but rater keep it with you all the time and then the size starts to be mater!
I don't know what the Germans are running on their G3s. The only optics I can remember the Heer running on them were the 4x Hensoldts on claw mounts. I'm guessing they probably have either LEI, B&T or ARMS mounts fitted. Suggests that the zero wander issue may be more endemic.
Adobe construction is heavy cover. That's what a GL (or a JDAM) is for. More common intermediate barriers that small arms can expect to defeat includes autoglass. Small projos bust apart when going through windshields.
If they go down to Helmand and Oruzgan, the MP7s will quickly vanish. Not too many Timmies in Mazar.
You lot(the Finns) are carrying m/95s right?
Simon
Adobe construction is heavy cover. That's what a GL (or a JDAM) is for. More common intermediate barriers that small arms can expect to defeat includes autoglass. Small projos bust apart when going through windshields.
If they go down to Helmand and Oruzgan, the MP7s will quickly vanish. Not too many Timmies in Mazar.
You lot(the Finns) are carrying m/95s right?
Simon
QUOTE(Simon Tan @ Tue 24 Jun 2008 1158)
I don't know what the Germans are running on their G3s. The only optics I can remember the Heer running on them were the 4x Hensoldts on claw mounts. I'm guessing they probably have either LEI, B&T or ARMS mounts fitted. Suggests that the zero wander issue may be more endemic.
Me neither. I've seen some scopes and some AIMPOINT's on G3's.
QUOTE(Simon Tan @ Tue 24 Jun 2008 1158)
Adobe construction is heavy cover. That's what a GL (or a JDAM) is for. More common intermediate barriers that small arms can expect to defeat includes autoglass. Small projos bust apart when going through windshields.
That's true. But as ROE restricts a lot of CAS usage while TIC, GL's, GMG's and LAW are very popular in every troop. Also the problem is that INS tactics are very clever to use those restrictions that ISAF has...but not more about that in here.
QUOTE(Simon Tan @ Tue 24 Jun 2008 1158)
If they go down to Helmand and Oruzgan, the MP7s will quickly vanish. Not too many Timmies in Mazar.
Thats true...and the hell will freze over before you see GER in south of KBL...
BTW there is more Timmies than you believe in KDZ and FEY...but not more about that in here either QUOTE(Simon Tan @ Tue 24 Jun 2008 1158)
You lot(the Finns) are carrying m/95s right?
Yep. SAKO m/95's with ACOG's or AIMPOINT's and if needed with Patria VV2000 II's
It seems the "G36A2" (latest standard version for the Germans) uses a Zeiss reflex sight instead of the old aimpoint.
The Z-Point is an uber piece of shit.
Read some reviews of it. They vary quite a bit. Some love it, some hate it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.