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.

  • 3257
    MEMBERS
  • 184817
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

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

Started 14/9/20 by QuintusO; 35550 views.
In reply toRe: msg 153
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

23-May

Yet another explanation that turned up for zero shift:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?175043-Apparently-H-amp-K-G36-issues-totally-overblown&p=2296458#post2296458

Pretty much across the board, a metal receiver with a metal picatinny rail mounted to the metal receiver, seems like a solid way to address the problem. And even if there is no problem, such a system would likely still be more accurate and durable. 

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

23-May

Seems to me like the ideal way to handle this is to just get a new gun rather than trying to band aid one that wasn't anything super special in the first place.

Plus if they do another competition that might coax Glock into submitting an entry.

renatohm

From: renatohm

23-May

There have been patent disputes enough to warrant another competition...

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

24-May

roguetechie said:

Seems to me like the ideal way to handle this is to just get a new gun rather than trying to band aid one that wasn't anything super special in the first place. Plus if they do another competition that might coax Glock into submitting an entry.

That would be cool, but on the other hand theres something to be said for simply modernizing the guns they have ala M4-->M4A1-->URGI. 

Especially since weapons design may be on the cusp of revolution should NGSW pan out. 

Upgrade the G36 to Steyr G62, and they have a solid, SCARish rifle that can serve well for the next 10 years, maybe use some of the saved money for some boost in optics. Plus going 'G62' requires no need for retraining troops and the army gets to keep most of their spare parts intact. 

Meanwhile, they get a nice breather to see how AP ammo, polymer cases, and high pressure ammo pan out. 

If it turns out 5.56 remains relevant 10-15 years from now, no doubt the 5.56 weapons available then will be better/ more refined then the 5.56 weapons they could buy today. 

In reply toRe: msg 157
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

24-May

This article seems to have the best evidence in support of the G36 actually having a zero shift / polymer melting issue. 

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/03/the-g36-controversy-intensifies/

The article and the comments are worth a read.

But the clear cutaway G36 shows all the ways the POI can be impacted, and why a metal receiver really would be advisable:

Not only is the barrel in a plastic receiver, but the optic rail is supported by the plastic receiver and the plastic handguard. In combination that provides opportunities for zero shift. 

-If the barrel heats sufficiently, it may deform / expand the polymer enough to shift the barrels zero. 

-If enough force is applied to the handguard, it may shift the rail enough to impact the optics zero.

-If force is applied to the handguard when the weapon is hot and barrel also shifting, you could see dramatic POI change as both the barrel and optic mount shift. 

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

24-May

Police tend to have much higher standards than the military when it comes to accuracy , but still its kinda moot for SWAT as these cops shoot at 3-10m ranges and their snipers at 50m . 

End of the day MP5SD that has 10moa grouping seems to be acceptable to most police . 

While i am certain modern polymers can handle the temperatures, there is really an issue of shedding the heat ,once it gets hot it stays hot for much longer, compared to metal counterparts.

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.

TOP