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.

  • 3434
    MEMBERS
  • 198254
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

PDW again   Small Arms <20mm

Started 20/12/20 by DavidPawley; 198111 views.
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

28/4/23

Note that .300BLK when chosen by the military is to meant to replace the 9x19 , so MP5 , not 5.56x45 weapon. 

stancrist

From: stancrist

28/4/23

Australian SF also used 5.56x45 carbines in preference to the general issue 5.56x45 bullpups.

AUSTRALIAN SOTG SPECIAL FORCES - 2 COMMANDO REGIMENT - HELMET CAM COMBAT FOOTAGE - AFGHANISTAN

Commandos from the Holsworthy based, 2CDOLeaked helmet cam footage.

Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan (archive footage)

Australian special forces (SASR/2nd commando regiment) helmet cam footage from AfghanistanArchive footage "From the Shadows: Australia's Special Forces" docu...

EmericD

From: EmericD

29/4/23

stancrist said:

Australian SF also used 5.56x45 carbines in preference to the general issue 5.56x45 bullpups.

And French SF are also using 5.56x45 mm carbines instead of the FAMAS, but in the case of the French SF, (and I think it's also the case of the Aussies SF), one of the main goal is not to carry a big "we are French" or "we are Australian" tag.

stancrist

From: stancrist

29/4/23

EmericD said:

French SF are also using 5.56x45 mm carbines instead of the FAMAS, but in the case of the French SF, (and I think it's also the case of the Aussies SF), one of the main goal is not to carry a big "we are French" or "we are Australian" tag.

That sounds absurd, more like an excuse to justify the needless purchase of what they want to use.

I suppose that UK special forces also uses 5.56x45 carbines so as to not carry a "we are British" tag?

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

29/4/23

In actuality, Australian infantry (and later cavalry scouts, special operations troopers and clearance divers) have used M16A1 rifles since Konfrontasi (aka Operation Claret) prior to Australia entering the Vietnam War. The AUG was selected over the M16A2 for manufacturing reasons in the 1986 small arms replacement program. At the time the SAS & CDO troopers who were part of the testing program preferred the M16A2 to the AUG. School of Infantry instructors preferred AUG.
To be completely fair, there are 3 acknowledged reasons for the SOCOMD preference for M4:

  1. Maritime operations - the gas piston and operating rod assembly in the F88 is difficult to drain and submersion can render the weapon inoperable for a time. The M4 is ready to use after a few seconds drainage.
  2. Modularity - the M4 was adopted along with elements of SOPMOD (I) including the KAC RIS. At the time, the F88 predominantly was issued with the fixed carry handle 1.5x scope and has little ability to integrate weapon mounted ancillary devices.
  3. Reliability - the initial production F88 had some reliability issues* which soured SASR & 1 CDO on the F88.

Ergonomics is not cited as a reason for SOCOMD selection of M4 rifles.

EDIT: Nor is deniability of nationality.

*The reliability problem was traced to clearance between the operating parts and the seam weld in the stock, the TDP and the Steyr assembly process didn’t match. The Steyr stock manufacture workers removed material greatly in excess of the TDP, ADI held tight tolerance to the TDP and there was impingement from the weld into the path of the slide which resulted in erratic bolt closure. Altering the TDP to specify sufficient clearance resolved the problem.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

29/4/23

stancrist said:

LOL. Most of the world's armies do not want to use bullpups.

And special forces typically prefer a conventional configuration.

That is the poorest possible argument imaginable.

Its in the same league as "children allways want pizza or sweets, so pizza and sweets has to be the ideal food for children."

Soldiers are only experts (if at all) in soldering. They are NOT experts in firearms technology, physics, logistics, engineering etc. Furthermore they can not want something they do not know about or don't understand. If you ask soldiers what they want and really try to start a program to get it you end up with desasters like Puma.
Two brand new examples: The RHIB for the KSM replacement debacle and the new moronic handgun policy of the German armed forces.
In the first case the SF guys where asked what they wanted and needed to get the best combat boat ever... the result has been an impossible list. In the sense of basic physics would be violated as well as a complete lack of foundation in modern engineering. The resulting cluster f*** resulted in the program to be terminated last week and the starting of a investigation by MoD.
The new handgun policy is that every soldier now gets a pistol and two reloads regardless of his other equipment, weapon and function.
Reason: the soldiers asked for it... because they did not understand why only special personell gets issued handguns. The second argument is: "to have a means of last ditch defense when you run out of ammo". Which is the dumbest thing I have heard in a very long time. A loaded P8 comes at roughly 1 kg. Two loaded 9x19 mags are roughly 1/2 kg. A loaded 30 rds mag for the G36 comes at roughly 1/2 kg. So the soldier exchanges three additional 30 rds mags for his primary weapon for 90 rds in total for a weapon of highly questionable combat effectiveness with 45 rds. If that doesn't make sense. Especially if running out of ammo is the issue.
It gets even dumber if you think about machine gunners or soldiers armed with MP7. Yes these also get a secondary pistol. Everyone gets one. So nobody feels left out. If anything IMHO this is a reason to never again ask any soldier. The level of stupidity and ignorance is staggering.

EmericD

From: EmericD

29/4/23

stancrist said:

That sounds absurd, more like an excuse to justify the needless purchase of what they want to use.

Absurd, maybe, but anyone carrying a FAMAS is also carrying a large "hey, I'm related to the french government!" tag, and SF (and the guys that give them orders) generally don't like this kind of publicity.

autogun

From: autogun

29/4/23

schnuersi said:

The new handgun policy is that every soldier now gets a pistol and two reloads regardless of his other equipment, weapon and function.

The British Army virtually ignored pistols for decades after WW2, but their attitude changed as a result of experience in Afghanistan, when locals of questionable loyalty sometimes opened fire within military bases. As a result, the army issued every soldier with a Glock, so that they always had a means of self-defence on them. They even set up training sessions in pistol use...

  

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

29/4/23

autogun said:

The British Army virtually ignored pistols for decades after WW2, but their attitude changed as a result of experience in Afghanistan, when locals of questionable loyalty sometimes opened fire within military bases. As a result, the army issued every soldier with a Glock, so that they always had a means of self-defence on them. They even set up training sessions in pistol use...

Which made some sense during the deployment in Afghanistan. Even though I would argue if you have to arm your soldiers so they can defend themself while inside a guarded base there is something fundamentally wrong and step one would be to remove all foreign personell, especially the ones of questionably loyality from the base and its vicinity.
I do get the argument concering Afghanistan. We need pistols to be armed in base. But this is theatre specific. I do not get the argument every soldier needs a pistol in case he runs out of ammo for his primary weapon.

Since the deployment in Afghanistan ended it makes no sense to introduce pistols for everyone now. Furthermore literally pistols for everyone. Regardless of area of deployment and function.
Which is typical for what happens if you ask a soldier. Of course he wants to prepare for the last war. This is what he knows and has some experience in. Which is why its a good idea to simply do as they ask.

stancrist

From: stancrist

29/4/23

DavidPawley said:

To be completely fair, there are 3 acknowledged reasons for the SOCOMD preference for M4:

1. Maritime operations - the gas piston and operating rod assembly in the F88 is difficult to drain and submersion can render the weapon inoperable for a time. The M4 is ready to use after a few seconds drainage.

2. Modularity - the M4 was adopted along with elements of SOPMOD (I) including the KAC RIS. At the time, the F88 predominantly was issued with the fixed carry handle 1.5x scope and has little ability to integrate weapon mounted ancillary devices.

3. Reliability - the initial production F88 had some reliability issues* which soured SASR & 1 CDO on the F88.

Ergonomics is not cited as a reason for SOCOMD selection of M4 rifles.

Thanks for that info, David.

TOP