gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3259
    MEMBERS
  • 184877
    MESSAGES
  • 22
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

LMAO Germany adopts an AR-15   Small Arms <20mm

Started 14/9/20 by QuintusO; 36425 views.
poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

24-May

I didn't talk about the whole military. I mentioned some units like Grupos de Acción Rápida de la Guardia Civil. Their training level is not comparable with any local SWAT team or directly most of the police units of the entire world.

Inside NATO there are a few truly outstanding units. Such units invest what it needs to maintain their needed levels, and they are intervening all the time outside of national frontiers. It's not the same at all to conduct an operation in the downtown of an American city that to enter and exit in Bamako or Mosul, for instance

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

24-May

What I don't understand is why HK didn't pay attention to what Steyr did with AUG architecture. I mean, all the alledged problems of G36's design are solved with AUG dual rails. Just think about what IMI did with internal receiver of the Tavor

It's like "cheap soldiers only deserve cheap rifles", or something like that. 

And, as I said, HK was not the winner of Spanish program, at least under the testers' point of view

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

24-May

Indeed that article does show a lot of the evidence.

I get your point about the g62 thing to a degree but if you look at the L85a2 and a3 saga, especially the cost factor, it quickly becomes apparent that often times fixing or overhauling a design beyond what should have been end of life can wind up being both obscenely more costly but also lengthy than just buying something off the shelf.

I suspect, just kidding I outright know because I know a couple guys in the BA, that the actual army would vastly prefer just getting new guns from colt Canada. (And maybe some ammunition that's not so low pressure and low velocity that it won't even cycle an AR!)

I imagine that the bundeswehr has to have a similar sort of feelings. Though I can't see them going colt Canada, and I wouldn't want them too because we in the west need to preserve what little arms production capacity we have left.

This whole situation genuinely sucks for the people who have to use these guns.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

24-May

In a military with a few units that have high marksmanship standards there's easy ways to just keep funneling brand new guns to those elite units frequently and then cycling their older guns into the general service pool.

This is exactly what the US was doing with the m14ebr's during the early GWOT because the accurizing on the guns dropped out of spec extremely quickly with field use.  In the case of the EBR's they had a floating supply of 3-5 times as many guns as needed cycling through the system at all times in order to keep enough accurized guns in the field.

What I'm suggesting isn't controversial at all, it's pretty much just what militaries do when they have a suboptimal gun that they're being forced to make it work with.

JPeelen

From: JPeelen

24-May

The G36 was adopted in the period after breakdown of communism, when everybody thought eternal peace had broken out. No more money for technologically challenging projects. "At last we can afford to buy cheap rifles."  

Bundeswehr as well as HK (and many others) did send the old hands into retirement, getting rid of the voices who always criticised fancy management ideas for cutting corners. As an armament engineer from another company described the situation: "HK now has a young designer team, very capable nerds in Computer Aided Design, but without any practical experience in small arms use or design whatsoever." A natural consequence of our modern anti-gun societies. 

The general situation is worsened by the downfall of publications in the small arms field (no more Chinn-like facts, only coffee table illustrations and marketing "facts") and the prevailing classification hysteria (keep our own young people and soldiers as ignorant as possible; all the facts they need to know they can learn from marketing). A neutral assessment of the Steyr AUG (more than a decade "old" to the youngsters at the time) strengths and weaknesses would not have been feasible in such an environment.  

As you know, the details of Bundeswehr AUG test results versus G36 were never published.              

  • Edited 24 May 2021 15:09  by  JPeelen
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

25-May

poliorcetes said:

And, as I said, HK was not the winner of Spanish program, at least under the testers' point of view

Had they preferred the AUG? And is there any more info on which models were considered in the Spanish program? 

Its kind of an interesting firearms alternate history - had Germany and Spain gone with the AUG over the G36, the AUG could have ended up one of the dominant 'European Rifles.' And the AUG design itself would have experienced a much more rapid development / enhancement cycle.  

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

25-May

roguetechie said:

I get your point about the g62 thing to a degree but if you look at the L85a2 and a3 saga, especially the cost factor, it quickly becomes apparent that often times fixing or overhauling a design beyond what should have been end of life can wind up being both obscenely more costly but also lengthy than just buying something off the shelf.

I think the L85 upgrade was a lot more torturous / a waste as the gun was out of production, so the parts had to be scratch produced as a one off, and also because the design itself was flawed and needed to be not just upgraded, but reworked internally. 

That said, in both the L85 and the G36, no doubt getting a new rifle entirely would be optimal. But given the drama Germany has had with the replacement, and also the sort of transitory technological shift we may be in for this decade for firearms tech, an upgrade could be a prudent stopgap. Especially if Steyr is able to pull it off for a reasonable cost. 

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

25-May

Upgrades, especially one this deep that requires a new receiver and other parts, are always going to cost more just by their very nature.

So think about this, when you decide to do an upgrade program you start pulling guns back to depots (that in itself costs money). You then start disassembling, gauging, sorting, and making lists of parts of each grade + parts you need to replace ones that come back out of spec. (Lots of money manpower, space, and time just in this step) you then with your pile of boxed up and separated out parts that are in varying conditions do what you can to refinish the parts that aren't utter crap(more time and money) you then gauge the parts again and sort them by where on the tolerance spectrum they fit(more of both again) you then get in the receivers and start assembling doing assembly qc factory testing and etc (more time and more money)

Finally you now have your pile of reassembled Frankenstein guns and you spend 3-12 months arguing with various units about which assembly grade of guns they should get back (more time and money)

I'm absolutely certain there's several intermediate steps I'm missing all of which will require time money personnel facilities and etc as well as the inevitable batches of guns you wind up buying to cover shortfalls so x or y unit can do thing z z1 & z2...

It's one of those situations that sounds good on paper to people who don't have a good hold on what something like this actually takes. To everyone who does though, it's pretty obviously a nightmare shit sandwich that's going to blow out both the budget and acceptable time interval badly in order to wind up with rifles that cost you twice as much as new ones without actually giving you the benefit of new guns.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

25-May

Upgrade projects are often political and often go along these line ,politicians make money available , long as you are not buying new ,cost-efficacy is of little to no concern

taschoene

From: taschoene

25-May

Yeah, you get a feel for this given the full "optional" scope of the retrofit includes a new barrel, fore-end, mag well, etc.  When you get to the point that all you're keeping of the original gun is the stock and trigger group, you're better off starting from scratch.  

TOP