|
Steyr AUG
Probably biased here but the Steyr AUG, love it or loath it, it got whatcha need!
Fires standard 5.56mm round so ammo's readily available. Fully loaded, its less then eight pounds so its quite quite light. Recoil as well is barely noticable. Bullpup design means the weapon is nicely compact. Modular design, breaks into 4 big parts...which admittedly break into many small parts! But the cleaning kit is stored inside the butt and even if you're a complete klutz, it shouldnt take more then a minute to put it all back together again. JUst watch the gas plugs... Magazines come in 30 or 42 round sizes. Also vaguely transparent so you can get an idea of how much rounds you've left in there. Its quite rugged and robust. I'm pretty sure the majority of the Steyr's I'm issued with were manufactured in the 80s and have been smashed around the place but they still do the job fantastically well. Did I mention jamming is rarely an issue? Compatible with the M203 grenade launcher. Easy to modify, particularly for left-handed shooters so they don't get brass all in their face. Also by changing the barrels, bolt and mag (plus mag housing), you can convert it into an LMG or an SMG firing 9mm. I've tried the 9mm variant once and its bloody mental! I'll admit the standard optical sight is shite, but if you're a halfway decent shot you should still be hitting targets past 300m, the gun will do it. I'm personally only familiar with the A1 so no grenade launchers for me or improved optics, but the ARW have the A2's and A3's and they get all the neat gadgets. Either way, a bloody handy rifle! |
I prefer the M16 or M4 series weapon. That is what I am most comfortable with in reality as well.
Although as alternatives, I would choose an M1 Garand, an M1 Garand re-chambered in .308, or an M14. |
Quote:
I purchased mine from them two years ago and have burned about 900 rounds so far, and not a single problem yet!!! |
Its the AUG for me: nothing against the black rifle, its a solid design, but I feel from a usability point of view the AUG is a handier weapon, especially for mounted troops. If I had to pick a rifle to equip my army, the exact version would be in 6.8spc though, and yes, there are 6.8spc AUGs out there: they are license made in the USA by MSAR.
|
I think the sheer amount of 5.56 NATO, 7.62mm NATO, 7.62/5.45mm Kalashnikov, and 7.62mm Nagant cartridges in the world and the companies set up to manufacture them will make their replacement difficult and a long time in coming. Eventually, though, I think we will skip over caseless ammunition and replace them with ETC for rifles and heavier weapons, and retain the cased ammo for pistols. (Don't hold your breath for an ETC rifle, though -- I think those will be something my nephew's grandchildren will have rather than any time soon.)
BTW, my nephew got lucky -- his unit at 1ID went into an extended training/reserve role, and he has yet to see either Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn't bode well for his future in the Army (the Army favors combat vets for promotions and choice positions), but I consider him lucky. |
M16A2 for my PC. does the job good enough, plenty of parts around if i gotta fix it, and its looks "poge" enough that the commies just might let me pass(hey i can hope)
|
I voted other even though the M16 family is the AR that I am the most familiar with. For the other I would go with the H&K G41 as its design goes back to the G3 thru the 33 to it. Uses STANAG mags and can mount NATO optics as well as the H&K claw mount ones. Plus the folding stock version is pretty compact making it ideal for mounted troops.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Though if it did I can easily see the brits coughing politely as we swap to a .270 round and saying "We told you so..." |
Quote:
|
Well, I appear to have spoken a bit too soon:
Jordan has decided to license build 6.8spc LWRC rifles for their royal guard, true, they say only 5000 for now, but since they have the facility to make more, I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road the rest of the Jordanian Army goes down the 6.8 road. |
I don't see why the 6.8 is such a big deal? The round is really only made for close fighting. It's like a American made version of the 7.62x39mm. 6.8 is more a specialty round then a jack of all trades. The bullets are heavier and from what I have seen magazine capacity gets reduced also. Not dogging it, but it just seems lake a bad chose to have if you have to fight outside a built up area.
|
Um, yes and no. The whole 5.56 vs 6.5 vs 6.8 is half fact and half hyperbole. They each have strengths and weaknesses over each other. 5.56 doesn't hit as hard as some (including me who has used it as it was meant) but you can carry a lot of it easily. The 6.5 has the range - and the hitting power at range - that has to seen to believed, but is expensive and is optimised for long distance work (and admittedly its damn good at it). The 6.8 hits much harder than the 5.56, somewhat harder than the 6.8 under 400m, and is about the same at 400m+ as the 5.56 in accuracy and hitting power, all of which I am fine with. Downside is as mentioned, ammo capacity of a 30rd mag drops to 25. I personally don't have a problem with that. You can always have built 30rd versions that won't be much bigger so you can still use most ammo pouches out there, but I'll agree the roughly 40% increase in weight compared to 5.56 does suck.
But with harder hitting bullets you won't have to use as many (not that joe won't anyways, joe being joe) to get the same results. As to the 6.5, if I wanted a sniper round, it would be at least a 7.62. Or you could look at it this way: The 5.56 was designed by varmint shooters to shoot varmints. The 6.5 was designed by game hunters to take down game with a AR platform. The 6.8 was designed by soldiers to kill other soldiers with the same AR platform. |
5.56, 6.5 or 6.8 doesn't really matter if your only driving it down an 11 inch barrel.
L85A1, heavy, unreliable but for front line troops came as standard with a 4x SUSAT. L85A2, Heavy, very reliable and still has an optic on it. 21" barrel gives enough velocity to an SS109 round to penetrate CRISAT armour at 450m and still has enough punch to do some damage. I can't hit a bus at 200m with an AK, but I can hit a man sized target at 600m with an L85. Forget the L86 though, not worth the extra barrel length. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
We had brand new MPiK-74Ns in our arms room for foreign weapons training/familiarization, and they were awfully well put together for AKs (fit/finish better than the Polish AKMs and Bulgarian AR-M1s and RPK-74s we also had . . . and we won't even talk about the stack of Century Arms imported Romanian AKs we also had). Main issue I had with them was that folding stock is just ridiculously short, even for combat marksmanship sort of shooting. (Have heard that the Poles, who used the same stock, universally despised it on their version of the 74 as well.)
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j1...g?t=1299299247 Raises the interesting idea of Warsaw Pact troops feeling that there were better and worse (or cooler/less cool) versions of the AK. With almost everyone in the front line states running some sort of AK-74, I wonder if you'd get East German AKs being prized trophies among Soviet troops, or Poles ditching their weapons for Soviet 74s any chance they got, etc. (And of course the AKSU would be extremely coveted I'm sure . . .) |
Hmm My Arsenal SG-31 5.45 (ak 74) is a great shooter. Its a 1-2is moa shooter with standard surpluss ammo. (closer to 2 then one). Thats better then minute of man. The 5.45 is more of a 300-400+ rifle I would think. The 7.62x39 is more of the 100-200ish rifle.
I think Ill go for the ak74 for my characters. In Europe/pact countries as ammo might be easier to come by. |
I went with the L85 (with a preference in post-apoc scenarios for the L1A1) for exactly the reasons Rainbow Six did; familiarity, with the added factor of tending to play British pcs.
I like the bullpup idea for the ability to carry a weapon with a full length barrel, that doesn't take up too much space in an APC. The clever 3-part sling was sheer genius- whether you're carrying something that needs both hands, or digging a trench, or relieving yourself behind a tree, the rifle stays eady for use and can be swung into firing position immediately. The BIG downside is the inability to fire around the left hand side of buildings without exposing yourself to enemy fire- for that I almost went for the Steyr AUG, but I wondered about availability. Likewise for the Galil- I'll have to carry a bottle opener! |
Quote:
|
I am kinda of the Maestro of battle rifles so here is my take on what a "battle rifle" vs. an "assault rifle" and is mostly dependent on caliber and conception of purpose/use on the battle field. These are my own definition between the two, both firearms have been used as standard infantry rifles which is where I believe the confusion comes from hopefully this helps in understanding the slight variantion in both types of firearm.
(ASSUALT RIFLE): a rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge, is capable of select fire and is fed by a detachable magazine. (INTERMEDIATE CATRIDGE): a catridge that is greater in power than a pistol/SMG but less powerful than a full power rifle catrige. (SELECT FIRE): Capable of Semi-automatic fire as well as full-automatic or mutilple round burst or both. The SELECT meaning the ability to choose one rate of fire or another. (BATTLE RIFLE): a rifle that fires a full power rifle catridge, maybe select fire and most likely is fed from a detachable magazine. Hopefully that didn't cause more confusion I will use examples to distinquish the two types of infantry rifles. ASSAULT RIFLES: AK-47, AKM, AK-74: in calibers 7.62X39mm and 5.45X39mm as mentioned all fire an intermediate round are select fire (Semi-auto or Full Auto) and are fed with detachble box magazines. M16,M16A1,M16A2 all in caliber 5.45X45mm, select fire Semi-Auto or Full-Auto or Semi-Auto and 3 round Burst and are fed with detachable box magazines. BATTE RIFLES: M1, M14, FAL, G3A3 in Calibers 7.62X63mm, 7.62X51mm. The M1 is Semi-auto Only, the M14, FAL and G3A3 are Select fire capable Semi-auto and Full Auto. The M1 feeds from an 8 round internal clip. The M14 can be fed with 5 round charger clips or fed with a deatchable box magazine. The FAL and G3A3 are fed by detachable box magazines. Caliber is the easiest distinction, INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGES are 7.92x33 Kurz, 7.62x39mm, 5.56X45mm, 5.45X39mmm to name a few. FULL POWER RIFLE CATRIDGES: 7.62X51mm, 7.62X54R are the the most common with 7.92X57, .303 (7.7X56mmR), .30-06 (7.62X63MM) as older but excellent options. |
Does that mean the M2 carbine (full-auto version of the M1) was technically an assault rifle?
|
The M1/M2 carbine is an interesting debate in that respect. The caliber is intermediate between military pistol ammo and full power rifle rounds, so (especially the M2), yes. On the other hand, 30 Carbine is on par with some of the heavier pistol cartridges -- ballistics are similar to 357 Magnum from a rifle barrel for instance. So it could be considered a "heavy SMG."
This is the problem with any sort of typology. As soon as you define categories you immediately have the fringe examples and outliers which are borderline for the categories. |
Horse soldier is correct about broad sweeping definitions of firearms.
M2 carbine in my opinion is a proto-assault rifle in that they don't truly fire an intermediate catridge. I really consider the .30 carbine catridge to be a pistol catridge even though it has not been used in very many pistols (the ruger black hawk and AMT being the most notable). Its on par with .357 magnum as horse soldier said and its sort of like an enlarged SMG. I would say though there are more firearms that fit these catergories than do not. I think the biggest problem is many people think the 7.62x39mm isn't a intermediate catridge because they compare it to 7.62x51mm. While it the same diameter bullet the catridge of the 7.62x51mm has a lot more capacity for powder and can be fired at much longer ranges and pentrate thru heavier cover. 7.62X39mm is a 300 meter proposition. 7.62X51mm is good out to 800 meters and can be used by a very competent shooter further. I guess range is one way to rank the firearm... .30 carbine can be shot out to 300 meters (on paper) but that is aboslute max most people can't hit a man sized target after that range, at all so it really falls more into the SMG role than Assault rifle I wouldn't want to have to use it much further than 100 meters myself. Another good firearm that muddles these definitions I set is the SKS rifle. It is what I would consider a battle rifle that fireas an intermediate catridge (LOL) it is a more traditional pattern of rifle than the AK has a low capacity 10 round internal box magazine fed by stripper clips 20" barrel and is not select fire...but it shoots the intermediate 7.62X39mm rifle. It is another design that was attempting to be an assualt rifle but didn't quite make it. Had is been designed slightly earlier it would have been in 7.62X54mmR and been true battle rifle like simonovs earlier attempt the AVS-36 which was actually was select fire and fired 7.62X54mmR. These were used in early in ww2 before Tokarevs SVT-38 and SVT-40 replaced it. Cheers |
I went with the M-16 series purely out of familiarity with my nation's rifle. I've never fired one yet, but I've examined my friend's M4 and it's a pleasure to hold. We'll go shooting one of these days, I imagine.
|
I love the AK47/AKM. Im not ashamed to admit it. I dislike the M-16 family, even though the product is drastically improved, from what it started as. It really boils down to two things for me. Reliability, and hitting power. Nothing beats the reliability, durability, and strength of the AK. Ive just about ever crazy torture test there is with an AK. It always comes through with flying colors. Hell I watched some spetnaz guy load a mag in to a rifle. Set it down Magazine on the ground, and butt on the ground. Then do push ups off of it. Lets see you do that with a 16:p But heres the big thing to me Caliber. If you dont have at least .30cal. You dont have enough gun. (By the way that statement, kind of frightens me. As I believe my father would echo it) I mean really 5.56, its a gopher round. Just an ok one at that. Now I know that it been successfully used for about ever now. I just need a little more. And in the end. I own a Romanian SAR1 (Civilian semi-auto AK, I know, I know, people say their junk. But I must have a good one. Shoots sweet, and true.:)) I love it to death. Bar none my favorite to shoot.
|
Quote:
Got to be at least 7mm (give or take) to give me confidence it's actually going to take down the target without requiring follow up shots. Circa 5.56 will do it, but what's the point of being able to carry all those extra rounds when you need twice as many to do the job properly? |
M16.
If I have to go bone stock Military than an M16A2 AKA the Musket. However, Stoner's invention really shines in that it is completely modular. In fact one could re-configure a rifle mid mission. So, I carry an M16 series in M4 Configuration while mounted, from insertion I keep this on until the Patrol base. At the Patrol base the PL say it is a quick recon and I am the DM. Drop the magazine, eject the live cartridge, separate the upper receiver from the lower reciever, stow it, remove DM 20" upper with optics, Install upper with silicone wedge if necessary, re-insert magazine. I would still have the collapsible stock on but, I would go from a patrolling rifle to one that can confirm and engage targets at 800. Could even change calibers as easily such as going urban with a suppressed .458 SOCCOM with a change of upper, magazines and ammo. |
Pulling apart and reconfiguring would have to completely screw up the zero of the weapon....
Even if it had been zeroed before in that config, just the slightly different seating of the parts is likely to throw the zero off a couple of mils. |
Quote:
Thereforethe optics and the barrel are one unit. No change of zero for them. There is the fit between the upper receiver and the lower receiver that could come into play.This slight and there is available a silicone wedge that can be inserted to remove all play. A SOF unit could have certain M16 lowers "bedded" to matched uppers. However the silicone wedge is more economical and can be applied in the field. |
Quote:
At least that is the way I did it. Till I got around to getting lowers for almost all of my uppers. |
Quote:
What he said. |
On the AR, pretty much all the magic happens in the upper receiver, so as long as the sights or optic were pre-zeroed, installation on a lower wouldn't make any real practical difference.
Quote:
The modularity aspect for the individual Big Army troop isn't that great a strength on the AR/M16/M4 for the simple reason that it isn't used as such -- units just don't have additional specialized uppers, etc. However, I know a lot of SF guys, in some cases entire ODAs, that have deployed with multiple uppers for their M4s, and some guys who used SPR uppers on M4 lowers with pretty good success (trigger is not as good as the one on the issue SPR lower . . . but non-match grade M4 triggers never had an army-wide safety warning about match grade triggers failing on the SPRs). It makes pretty good sense if you're either doing mounted operations and have extra stowage for spare uppers (starts making much less sense when you've hauling a golf bag of gun parts on your back on a ruckmarch) or if your mission set(s) is/are deliberate enough you can preconfigure your weapons -- going into Fallujah, maybe 12" barrel uppers are preferable, patrolling some wide open stretch of nothing in Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe 18" uppers are better. That said, the bigger show stopper in my experience is ammunition quality rather than optimizing barrel length. With good ammo (Mk 262) and an ACOG, shooting unknown distance targets out to 600 meters gets boring, and (with the aid of a ballistic computer and spotter making wind call) I've seen a guy make a hit on a steel chest plate out around 1200 meters with a 12" upper. With standard issue green tip, you're probably more consistently in the 3-4 MOA (and realistically, anywhere from probably 1.5-6 MOA, depending on lot), which out at 600 which is pretty much just rolling the dice before you even start worrying about things like wind, bullets going transsonic, and such. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Huh? I have never experienced any of that. As for overheats, any weapons is going to do that pressed into service as a GPMG. The Rifle (or Carbine in this case) is not an M60 or M240B. As for SOF? Yeah, they certainly can pick any wazoo stuff off the shelf. Their budget is independent of Regular "Big" Army. Why does SOF take M4A1s or HK 416s? Logistics. Lots of parts and easy repairs. |
So you would trust an M4 over a M16A2,3, or 4 in an extended fire fight? Lasting over a half an hour? You would stake your life on a weapon designed for support troops as opposed to one designed for front line troops? Reports from the stan, fending off long engagements seem to say differently. Although, I dont know what youve been through. So You may have seen different. But the info I have read, and spoke to people with seems to same different. SF, inventory isnt as exotic as people would like to think. Personally I dont think the 416 is all that anyways.
|
Quote:
I carried an M4/M203 in Iraqi Freedom 03-04, 04-05. I am an MP. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.