Standard Issue

Joker said:
I agree with you PJ.
Have you also seen/fired/used the HK417? I only heard rumors about it. What do you think, is the higher power of the 7.62 worth the heavyer weight of the ammo? On my opinion (while I´m not a real pro), yes! 7.62 gives you more knockdown power than the 5.56, but this was enough discussed in other threads. Just my poor opinion.
Greetz JOker
Click to expand...

I have, and just like with the 416, I loved it! I've yet to meet a guy that's fired it (and didn't have an agenda) that didn't. It's too bad H&K didn't have it ready for the SASS contract, it would have been far better than the SR-25 and most likely would have been awarded the contract, and ther'e's no doubt H&K would have been able to fulfill the contract with quality weapons unlike someone else.

As for the 7.62 vs 5.56, different requirements. The HK417 isn't a replacement for 5.56, that's why there's the 416 (which is, again, preforming very well). Whether you would carry the 417 or 416 would be dependant upon what your mission requirements were.

It's like how we decide if guys need (for example) an M14 or two or just M4s, or a mixture of both.
 
AUG A1
Caliber: 5.56 x 45mm NATO
Action: Gas-operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: 790mm
Barrel length: 508mm
Weight: 3.6kg unloaded
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds
Rate of fire: 650 rounds per minute
 
CANADA's C7A1

Armament:
Cartridge: 5.56mm x 45mm NATO
Rate of Fire: cyclic, 700 to 940 rounds per minute
Magazine: 30 rounds
Specifications:
Weight: empty - 3.3kg, full - 3.9kg (not including M203A1 grenade launcher)
Length: normal butt, 1.0 m
Barrel Length: 530
Operation: direct gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed
Range: 400 m
Entered service : 1986

The C7A1 assault rifle is an improved version of the basic C7 combat rifle, incorporating a low-mounted optical sight. It is a Canadian adaptation of a U.S. firearm known as the M16A1E1. The C7A1 eliminates the carrying handle of the C7 and substitutes an optical sight. The weapon is equipped with a 3.5x optical sight, which is mounted in place of the carrying handle.
C7A1 rounds are 5.56 x 45 NATO standard. The weapon has an effective range of 400 metres and a rate of fire of 700 to 940 rounds per minute. Along with the optical sight, optional attachments include the M203A1 40mm grenade launcher, the AN PAQ 4 Laser pointer and the Image Intensification Night Sight (Kite sight). It has been in service with the Army since 1986.
 
F88 A4.
It's a variant of the F88 AusSteyr, which I love as a standard weapon due to the simplicity of it, and because you grow to love the ugly bugger day after day.
 
AussieNick said:
F88 A4.
It's a variant of the F88 AusSteyr, which I love as a standard weapon due to the simplicity of it, and because you grow to love the ugly bugger day after day.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between the regular F88 and the A4?
 
Hi

Just had a look around for topics on rifles and walked into this....

I'd like to comment on one issue, the AR15/M16/M4 being named here as the best issue assault rifle in the world.....

I'm not an exprienced soldier. I have only 9 months in service. Togather with my civil guard time, i have a bout 2.5 years of carrying a weapon in defence of my self and others. That is not alot compared to some here and many people i know.

I did however train with the M16 in harsh desert conditions. Ive also had basic training with the M1 Carbine and the Galil SAR. Of these 3 weapons, the M16 was my least favorit. Leaving aside the M1, which is a meuseum piece more than anything else, I can compare my exprience with the Galil to the M16.

The M16 i used was the old, long standart weapon, as you would find in vietnam. It is L_O_N_G. I hated that. In CQB training or with body armor it was uncomfrtable(not to mention on the train back home). Because its long its accurate. Very accurate. I have coordination problems and i really could hit very well with it, even on the assault and firing at a high rate. It is also very irriliable. Ive heard it all..."If you maintain it well it has no jamms"...."Clean it and its the best in the world"....

I say- Screw it. In a real war....An all ouw war, you might fire oundreds and even thousends of rounds before cleaning your weapon. If my weapon jams, what good dose it do me that it could hit a taget at 300 meters?!
The damn thing hates the sand. And the sand hates it. It collects dirt and fouling like i collect T-shirts. The IDF teaches diffrent M16 jamms of the M16, and in 9 short months ive had them all!

So, to summerise, I hate it. Its a weapon desighned to operate in lab conditions. It is accurate, and argonomic, and light. But its not the best by any means.
 
Well SHERMAN I'm sorry to here that. I haven't had any issues with my issued M4 carbine while I was in the army. My rifle served me well. The rifle that you were issued, was it by chance a M16A1? With the triangle grip and smooth side. Or did it have a round grip with a forward assist.

I currently own two civilian made COLT AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine and I haven't had any problems with them either.

As for the M1 Carbine. I love my rifle. She's great, 1944 built model that served in the US Army and later in the German Forestry Police, she still kicks ass and takes names.

And once again, I'm sorry that you had a crappy time with your rifle. None of the rifles that I have carried have given me any trouble.
 
Hey PJ, could you spin a couple of quickie scenarios for when you would use 5.56 as opposed to 7.62 and vice verse? Is it simply a matter of range? IE one would be better in environmentally enforced close range (woods, buildings, etc) than the other? Curious about the opinion of an operator on this one.

As for the M1 Carbine...they may be relics but, damn, they're fun to play around with. I had the opportunity to fool around with an M2 carbine at one point. It's even more fun as you may well imagine.
 
was it by chance a M16A1? With the triangle grip and smooth side. Or did it have a round grip with a forward assist.
Click to expand...

It was an M16A1 that was refurbished with a round grip. It was, to be fair, an old rifle. On the other hand, it is well known, and cant be atrributed to my rifle alone, that the M16 is not nearly as reliable as we would like. This is based on my experience and that of many others.
On comparison the Galil SAR fires the same 5.56 rounds, less accurately but without jamms. If there was a war tommarow, and i was givven the choice, id have a hard time choosing between them. This is with the fact that my galil training is poor and it weighs much much more. Calling the M16 the best in the world is highly optimistic.

As for the M1 Carbine. I love my rifle. She's great
Click to expand...
Yes they are fun and good for somthing, but they are not assault rifles. The 7.62X33 is not nearly as powerfull as the 5.56X45.

All in all if I had to choose a rifle for my self, it would have to be some sort of AK type clone, firing 5.56, made of lighter weight materials. The Ak-74 sounds good to me(though ive never fired it, so i dont know). I fired both the Galil and the AKM and found them much more pleasent to shoot than the M16, but maybe its just me...
 
Judging all M16's from the performance of the A1? That's an interesting idea. It sort of like judging the performance of the 1903 Springfield from shooting the 1884 Springfield. No, it isn't that extreme, but neither is a fair comparison.
 
dont know about those rifles sir. But the M4 is not dramitcally diffrent from the M16A1. And like i said, i refer mainly to the M16A1, although i know alot of people who have used all of them, from the a1 to the commando shorty.... saing a 40 years old desighn is the best in the world saying that we made no improvments in this field. Surely the G36, the FN SCAR, the Tavor or some other rifle is better, wouldent you say?
 
moving0target said:
Hey PJ, could you spin a couple of quickie scenarios for when you would use 5.56 as opposed to 7.62 and vice verse? Is it simply a matter of range? IE one would be better in environmentally enforced close range (woods, buildings, etc) than the other? Curious about the opinion of an operator on this one.
Click to expand...

You've already nailed it. It is a matter of range and environment. Afghanistan for example, very open, a lot of mountainous terrain, targets were often outside of the 500M range. For this reason alone, someone(s) on our team always had the ability to "reach out and touch" someone with 7.62.

In Iraq, there wasn't a great need for it. Most targets were less than 300M and most of our engagements were in urban areas. For that reason, the 5.56 (77gr) was ideal.

I've engaged out to 600M with 5.56, and it is effective, just again, not ideal.

Sherman said:
Yes they are fun and good for somthing, but they are not assault rifles. The 7.62X33 is not nearly as powerfull as the 5.56X45.
Click to expand...

Nor should an M4 be used as a rifle. It is a carbine. "Power" has very little to do with it. It comes down to using the right tool for the job. The biggest problem the 5.56 has is people not understanding its limitations and getting mad when it doesn't preform like the 7.62.

dont know about those rifles sir. But the M4 is not dramitcally diffrent from the M16A1. And like i said, i refer mainly to the M16A1, although i know alot of people who have used all of them, from the a1 to the commando shorty.... saing a 40 years old desighn is the best in the world saying that we made no improvments in this field. Surely the G36, the FN SCAR, the Tavor or some other rifle is better, wouldent you say?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say, no. I can just as easily engage targets with an M16 or M4 as I could with the over hyped "SCAR." (which isn't even a finished product and isn't ergonomic). It was designed to win contracts, not battles. The G36 isn't very ergonomic, either, but is reliable, though I wouldn't say any better.

People that complain about the M16s, especially the newer varients are generally lacking in the knowledge and experience. Weapons maintence is a must with ALL weapons. I don't care how many times you've heard the story of the AK that was buried for 6 thousand years and still fired.

Everyone has personal preferences. Some weapons just "feel" better to us than others. The M16/M4 may not be for everyone, but they are proven, reliable weapons, to say otherwise is to deny reality. They have more than proven themselves in combat. As has the 5.56.

The best advice I can give you is learn your weapons and your ammo, know their capabilities and you won't have near the problems others complain about. I used to jump on bandwagons too, until there came a time where the bullets weren't just flying one way.




 
I don't care how many times you've heard the story of the AK that was buried for 6 thousand years and still fired.
Click to expand...
I have an AK-47 about 3 feet from me right now....And trust me its no myth.

The best advice I can give you is learn your weapons and your ammo
Click to expand...

The only reason i do prefer the M16 to other weapons is simply that im well enough trained on it....and it is easy to use and argonomic indeed.

I used to jump on bandwagons too, until there came a time where the bullets weren't just flying one way
Click to expand...
Thankfully i have yet to experience that. However complaints on the M16 come from people who have seen much more than bullets fly both ways....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top