GranoblasticMan: Magorn: albo: Merkin For The Weekend: IMO, the gun that soldiers in Afghanistan need is the FAL

problem: not-invented-here syndrome. pentagon wants their own

but seriously, at ranges over 300 yards, are average soldiers going to be picking off the enemy even with a full-power round? at those ranges they'll be calling in artillery and air support, or firing grenades or using the GPMG

bah they should just re-issue these:


300 yards is practically point blank range for the rifle that beat Hitler, Hirohito and Mao and 8 bullets should be enough for anyone that knows how to aim properly

Also a great weapon to let your enemy know when you need to reload.

"Ejection of an empty clip created a distinctive metallic "pinging" sound. In World War II, reports arose in which German and Japanese infantry were making use of this noise in combat to alert them to an empty M1 rifle in order to 'get the drop' on their American enemies." ( ^ )

I've never used one, but I've heard that was mostly rumor and exaggeration, and that in the noise of a firefight, combined with the fact that one person reloading in a crowd of many isn't that big of a disadvantage meant that the ping wasn't as big a problem as it is made out to be.

Feh. Give me an M-14 or FN FAL any day. A proper rifle firing a proper bullet. So what if it's inconvenient for exiting farking vehicles? Can't carry as many 7.62mm rounds? Try placing your farking shots, you ninny.

Railgun from Eraser:

"It is said to fire aluminum rounds at close to the speed of light, which is dubious for all manner of reasons; power consumption and heating would both be impossible to deal with in an infantry weapon, but the main issue would be how a C-fractional bullet would interact with the air around it. The projectile would be superheated almost instantly and burn up before it left the barrel, with the gun effectively firing a stream of plasma that would rise and dissipate; the result would be more like a hot steam gun than a projectile weapon. If it didn't, the projectile would interact with the atmosphere like a large meteor, creating a massive superheated trail that behaved like a directional nuclear explosion, including wake radiation in the area behind it. Far from throwing victims into the air, it would drill a hole through them so cleanly and quickly they'd barely notice in the instant before they and the entire surrounding area were obliterated by the wake. The shooter would likely end up with an EM-1 shaped hole in them and an equally large trail of destruction going in the opposite direction from the gun shooting itself backwards with similar velocity to the projectile."

International Movie Firearms Database

Ack_Ack: It is said to fire aluminum rounds at close to the speed of light,

Yeah, that bit got a facepalm from me when I saw that flick.

Anyone actually fired an FNH SCAR-H.. thats a 7.62 NATO round.. why isn't that more frequently issued? cost? surly not performance.

dryknife that is a nice-looking Kentucky

Sgt Otter: From the rumors I heard...

Long story short, the Army and Marines almost had it almost approved, but then some Admiral was butthurt because the Navy wasn't consulted, and killed the whole program. Quarter billion down the drain.

/Don't quote me on that.

That is not at all what happened. The army was getting pressure from other gun manufacturers to open up the testing for the next gen infantry weapon. Obviously because who ever scores that contract is going to make a fortune.

These also missed several developmental goals such as weight, battery life, durability. Also, the MG variant did not out perform the M249. So there was no reason to adopt it.

H&K is still developing the weapon but so far no military force has adopted it yet.

When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier _of_ the Queen!

Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .

First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts --
Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts --
An' it's bad for the young British soldier.
Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .

When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt --
Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
A' it crumples the young British soldier.
Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .

But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
You must wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .

If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it's beer for the young British soldier.
Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .

Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .

If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both,
An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .

When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .

When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini M-4 a cross-eyed old biatch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .

When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .

If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier _of_ the Queen!

I don't think the British had M-4's in the 1830's.

entitygm: Didn't an army/marine unit get in trouble for arming themselves with the HK416? Seriously, the gas system has been a problem since Vietnam, they should stop tweaking it or telling the troops to just clean it more and adopt a new one. I suspect there's a lot of money involved

Yeah, the Army Times or whatever that publication is called did a report last year where apparently some of the Special Forces guys had been using them and they all got told to screw off and go back to the M-4s. It didn't really explain why, the entire article was focused mainly on the "M-16's jam in firefights" thing. But yeah, M416 is a pretty slick weapon.

Didn't an army/marine unit get in trouble for arming themselves with the HK416? Seriously, the gas system has been a problem since Vietnam, they should stop tweaking it or telling the troops to just clean it more and adopt a new one. I suspect there's a lot of money involved

Probably, someone is always getting pissed off when the common sense fairy hits. It probably had something to do with SF buying the guns without a full open bid so some congressman or military brass who hasn't fired a gun since the 80's could get his grimy finger into the deal and then sandbag it for some inferior POS made in his district.

Watch the History Channel show High Impact:M-16 and see how much shiat they tried to pull to get the M-16 to fail, rather than finding the real flaws and fixing them. Like the bolt not seating fully which required the bolt forward assist to be put on, or the chamber not being chromed and rusting in Vietnam.

Arkanaut: I don't think the British had M-4's in the 1830's.

Magorn: The men who taught me to Shoot that rifle in my youth were all Korean war vets who called that Ping "The Chinese Dinner Bell" and told me of a trick they'd use where they'd fire a clip with a single bullet left to get that "ping" (and the inevitable mass charge of Chinese soldiers that followwed it) while quickly slapping in the second clip they had in their hand an quickly taking down 8 enemy soldiers who had foolishly left cover and exposed themselves

Used to pull that in Americas Army. There'd be a close-range fight late in the game where I'm carrying two guns, fire off one into a doorway and let it click, then swap hands as the opfor comes charging in for the 'easy kill'. The original version of the game didn't have melee or sidearms, so you'd have firefights at extreme close range where both players would miss while dodging around each other (due to the realistic accuracy effects) and be frantically reloading their weapons two feet from one another...

Anyway, the military already hands out weapons/chooses personnel based upon expected mission. It's silly to revamp the M4 (a nice close to mid-range weapon) with a bigger caliber gun only to find it too heavy for CQC in the next fight. Just swap out M-110s/M-24s/SPRs or give them full-length barrels/M16s.

// bullpups are generally terrible when you need to swap shooting side around a corner
// just RTFA and apparently everything I just said is in there, whoops

hausman007 there is a world of difference between the M-16 of Vietnam and of the M-16s of today.

While they still are not the end all and be all of infantry rifles they still do work fairly well according to the half dozen members of my family that are serving in Iraq. But I think our guys deserve better then "just ok".

I think it's time to retire the M-16 and M-4 for a newer infantry rifle.

not particularly useful against an insurgency

/farkers let me down

mdking09: Anyone actually fired an FNH SCAR-H.. thats a 7.62 NATO round.. why isn't that more frequently issued? cost? surly not performance.

According to wiki soem special forces units have deployed witht hem.

If they work out we may see them more sidespread.

tlchwi02: It does seem a bit like the author is missing the point a bit.

The issue seems to be that rather than close in fights, a lot of the battles in afghanistan are essentially snipers or small groups of sharpshooters (i use the term loosely, as i understand the taliban generally aren't very accurate) firing from long distance. That doesn't indicate the M4 is an "inferior" weapon. the M4 is inferior to a bolt action SMLE? no, its inferior for hitting a target at 1000 meters but superior at engaging a target within 300 meters- the range where most previous clashes have generally taken place.

The pentagon adding in more sniper units with 1000 meter plus engagement range is a proper response. Replacing the M4 rifle because one particular theatre is "sniper" intensive doesn't make sense.

I don't think they are talking about replacing the M4...just augmenting the sniper component.

And I agree with your about the SMLE. I have a modest collection of bolt-action milsurp rifles from the SAW-WW2 time frame, and these are frighteningly effective man-killers in the 600-800 meter range. After all, they were all pretty much designed with WW1-style trench warfare in mind. Given the described conditions in Afghanistan, the M-110 sounds like an ideal solution.

s1ugg0: hausman007 there is a world of difference between the M-16 of Vietnam and of the M-16s of today.

While they still are not the end all and be all of infantry rifles they still do work fairly well according to the half dozen members of my family that are serving in Iraq. But I think our guys deserve better then "just ok".

I think it's time to retire the M-16 and M-4 for a newer infantry rifle.

We can't have that, those gun makers paid good payola to keep those guns in production!

RsquaredW: Magorn: The men who taught me to Shoot that rifle in my youth were all Korean war vets who called that Ping "The Chinese Dinner Bell" and told me of a trick they'd use where they'd fire a clip with a single bullet left to get that "ping" (and the inevitable mass charge of Chinese soldiers that followwed it) while quickly slapping in the second clip they had in their hand an quickly taking down 8 enemy soldiers who had foolishly left cover and exposed themselves

Used to pull that in Americas Army. There'd be a close-range fight late in the game where I'm carrying two guns, fire off one into a doorway and let it click, then swap hands as the opfor comes charging in for the 'easy kill'. The original version of the game didn't have melee or sidearms, so you'd have firefights at extreme close range where both players would miss while dodging around each other (due to the realistic accuracy effects) and be frantically reloading their weapons two feet from one another...

Anyway, the military already hands out weapons/chooses personnel based upon expected mission. It's silly to revamp the M4 (a nice close to mid-range weapon) with a bigger caliber gun only to find it too heavy for CQC in the next fight. Just swap out M-110s/M-24s/SPRs or give them full-length barrels/M16s.

// bullpups are generally terrible when you need to swap shooting side around a corner
// just RTFA and apparently everything I just said is in there, whoops

That article is entirely wrong. From hyphenating the M4 and M16 designations to claiming the M4 (or M16, with the commas it's not clear) was designed for "Vietnam jungle fighting".

The AR-15 was designed by Eugene Stoner in the '50s when it became clear after analyzing combat engagements in WWI, WWII and Korea that the vast majority of rifle kills came from engagements at less than 300 yards. The thought was why make every soldier haul around a heavy 1,000 yard capable battle rifle and associated heavy ammo when you could instead tailor the individual infantry weapon to be suited for combat at ranges where it would more likely be used.

This whole article is utter dreck.

s1ugg0: That is not at all what happened. The army was getting pressure from other gun manufacturers to open up the testing for the next gen infantry weapon. Obviously because who ever scores that contract is going to make a fortune.

These also missed several developmental goals such as weight, battery life, durability. Also, the MG variant did not out perform the M249. So there was no reason to adopt it.

H&K is still developing the weapon but so far no military force has adopted it yet.

IIRC, it was getting smoked by the FN SCAR family (which SOCOM now uses). Also, weren't the major issues with the XM family with the OICW? I remember that they simply couldn't get the weight down on that monstrosity.

tlchwi02: The issue seems to be that rather than close in fights, a lot of the battles in afghanistan are essentially snipers or small groups of sharpshooters (i use the term loosely, as i understand the taliban generally aren't very accurate) firing from long distance. That doesn't indicate the M4 is an "inferior" weapon. the M4 is inferior to a bolt action SMLE? no, its inferior for hitting a target at 1000 meters but superior at engaging a target within 300 meters- the range where most previous clashes have generally taken place.

The pentagon adding in more sniper units with 1000 meter plus engagement range is a proper response. Replacing the M4 rifle because one particular theatre is "sniper" intensive doesn't make sense.

Exactly that.

Thats why they have something called snipers if we engage over 1k feet, which we arent because the insurgents arent capable of accurate fire at 1000 ft. Keep doing that thing you call "journalism" ABC.

It's based on the M16 which is a terrible rifle design. The slightest amount of dirt/carbon buildup/etc. and it jams.

dittybopper: The Smails Kid: dryknife that is a nice-looking Kentucky

Mine is better:

Can't argue with that. Me like!

/range of about 3 feet

StoneColdAtheist: I don't think they are talking about replacing the M4...just augmenting the sniper component.And I agree with your about the SMLE. I have a modest collection of bolt-action milsurp rifles from the SAW-WW2 time frame, and these are frighteningly effective man-killers in the 600-800 meter range. After all, they were all pretty much designed with WW1-style trench warfare in mind. Given the described conditions in Afghanistan, the M-110 sounds like an ideal solution.

Oh yes, i don't think the pentagon is talking about replacing them. I'm not sure whomever wrote the article understood that though :)

my mossin is fascinatingly cool bolt action weapon and very accurate at range, but its got massive recoil, its shockingly heavy for what it is, and the ammo is all com-bloc, so the quality can be hard to find (and thats here in the states.) I wouldn't want to fight someone at close range with it, unless i was hitting them over the head

s1ugg0: hausman007 there is a world of difference between the M-16 of Vietnam and of the M-16s of today.

While they still are not the end all and be all of infantry rifles they still do work fairly well according to the half dozen members of my family that are serving in Iraq. But I think our guys deserve better then "just ok".

I think it's time to retire the M-16 and M-4 for a newer infantry rifle.

I agree, the M-16A2 is a much better gun that the original. My point was that the armorers were sandbagging the tests rather than finding the flaws in the design and fixing them before issuing them.

I carried both M-16 and M-4 and I prefer the M-4 since it was much easier to carry and I didn't notice a difference shooting out to 300m on the range.

The problem I see with the current conflicts is that the M-16A2 and M-4 fire a different bullet than the M-16. It is heavier and more stabilized, due to tighter rifling, giving it better range, was designed to fight Russians in body armor, not scrawny guys in man dresses. Insurgents were captured in Iraq with 5 fresh bullet wounds in their stomach and they were still attacking us. The military needs a bullet that even a gut or arm wound puts a guy out of the fight.

RsquaredW: s1ugg0: That is not at all what happened. The army was getting pressure from other gun manufacturers to open up the testing for the next gen infantry weapon. Obviously because who ever scores that contract is going to make a fortune.

These also missed several developmental goals such as weight, battery life, durability. Also, the MG variant did not out perform the M249. So there was no reason to adopt it.

H&K is still developing the weapon but so far no military force has adopted it yet.

IIRC, it was getting smoked by the FN SCAR family (which SOCOM now uses). Also, weren't the major issues with the XM family with the OICW? I remember that they simply couldn't get the weight down on that monstrosity.

A lot of special forces operators have also been expressing their like of the HK416. The biggest weakness of the AR style rifles is the direct gas impingement system where you're spraying hot, dirty gas directly onto the bolt face. By taking the well known and familiar receiver style of the M4/M16 and replacing its gas tube system with a the G36's short stroke piston setup you eliminate that gas fouling problem.

The_Sponge: hausman007: Bullpup weapons are nice except that the shell casing ejects right into the face of a left handed shooter and most of them need an armorer to change that.


Let's be honest....those crooked southpaws deserve it.

I know you're joking, but as someone who shoots left-handed it has nothing to do with the dominant hand and everything to do with eye dominance. I do everything right-handed, but shoot shoulder-fired weapons on my left shoulder. Likewise, people who are left-handed but right eye dominant should be shooting off their right shoulder.

LesserEvil: I present the temporary, field expedient replacement for the SAW:

Will have no problem engaging taliban at 800 yards, nor much of a problem bringing down most of the mountain they are standing on.

A bit more weight to carry, and identifying the resulting paste of blood and bits of flesh will make the intel guys annoyed, but that's what having a technological advantage is all about.

THIS. I mean, can't we just nuke from orbit? Fuel/air bomb? Seems to me that the solution to fighting insurgents holed up in a mountainous region where they have the home field advantage is simple: Remove the mountains.

/Not a military person
//I mean, isn't the sat tech from Enemy of the State reality yet?

Guysmiley: The AR-15 was designed by Eugene Stoner in the '50s when it became clear after analyzing combat engagements in WWI, WWII and Korea that the vast majority of rifle kills came from engagements at less than 300 yards. The thought was why make every soldier haul around a heavy 1,000 yard capable battle rifle and associated heavy ammo when you could instead tailor the individual infantry weapon to be suited for combat at ranges where it would more likely be used.

That and the studies showing that a lighter round could increase casualties via more wounds relative to kills. And the fact that a full-auto battle rifle is hard to control. If you mean tailoring the weapon itself, that really didn't come around until the 90's (SOPMOD/SCAR/HK416/OICW-XM), and if you mean tailor the squad makeup, well, the fireteam was invented between WWI and WWII.

RsquaredW: s1ugg0: That is not at all what happened. The army was getting pressure from other gun manufacturers to open up the testing for the next gen infantry weapon. Obviously because who ever scores that contract is going to make a fortune.

These also missed several developmental goals such as weight, battery life, durability. Also, the MG variant did not out perform the M249. So there was no reason to adopt it.

H&K is still developing the weapon but so far no military force has adopted it yet.

IIRC, it was getting smoked by the FN SCAR family (which SOCOM now uses). Also, weren't the major issues with the XM family with the OICW? I remember that they simply couldn't get the weight down on that monstrosity.

What's funny was the metric ton of videogames which prominently featured the XM8 family in "near future" conflicts. Way to bet on the wrong horse. It does look pretty "futurey" though, I showed a picture of it to one of my friends and she thought it was some Nerf toy at first.

dittybopper: Puss.

totally true. of course, i was sort of pointing out that more in the terms of combat effectivness. not such a big deal at a range, but hiking 10 miles carrying it, the ammo and then trying to lay down fire, while under fire with the kick on that thing...

mine.

/thats an ak-47 at the top
//Why yes I am a gun nut. never had much use for 5.56 NATO
///Vietnam vet

SkittlesAreYum: I know you're joking, but as someone who shoots left-handed it has nothing to do with the dominant hand and everything to do with eye dominance. I do everything right-handed, but shoot shoulder-fired weapons on my left shoulder. Likewise, people who are left-handed but right eye dominant should be shooting off their right shoulder.

This is why I prefer shooting pistols for fun. Right-handed, Left-eyed. Shooting skeet and rifle is uncomfortable for me (though with practice I'm a little better). I still play paintball shooting from the right since you don't actually aim down the sights.

So it only took the army 9 years to figure that out? Wow.

Cool, gun thread.

I was wondering if any of you farkers could recommend a good entry level semi-auto or bolt action rifle for a left-handed shooter? It would be mainly for target practice, possibly deer hunting. I haven't shot a gun since Boy Scouts, but I got a friend who's trying to pull me in with him.

Shabash, Huzoor!



Perhaps you might be interested in a few of our finest Jezzails?

Gdalescrboz: Thats why they have something called snipers if we engage over 1k feet, which we arent because the insurgents arent capable of accurate fire at 1000 ft. Keep doing that thing you call "journalism" ABC.


The hell they aren't. We saw insurgent snipers armed with 7.62 X 54R Dragunovs in the Anbar and Ninevah provinces at least twice a month. It got to the point where unless we were being directly engaged, we kept our heads below the HMMV turret. Keep doing that thing you call "talking out your ass".