Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
wow... the US armed forces wake up !
shadow boxer
The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16[/url]
and the OICW =
[url]http://hkpro.com/oicw.htm[/url]
for ferks sake... everyone knows the M16 is a turkey, it always has been.
and the OICW ? gawd... at $15000 bucks its ridiculous even for the US armed forces.
Whats wrong with a bullpup 7.72 battle rifle ? hmmm ? Short total length, hitting power and with a decent chance of being accurate.
The US seems to adopt things out of 'being different' from the Europeans or the British... you make great guns when you want to but man... you settle for some real crap ones. I can only hope that its a case of contract corruption rather than a real choice... or you need to shoot your 'aquirement and evaluation teams/brass'.
and the OICW =
[url]http://hkpro.com/oicw.htm[/url]
for ferks sake... everyone knows the M16 is a turkey, it always has been.
and the OICW ? gawd... at $15000 bucks its ridiculous even for the US armed forces.
Whats wrong with a bullpup 7.72 battle rifle ? hmmm ? Short total length, hitting power and with a decent chance of being accurate.
The US seems to adopt things out of 'being different' from the Europeans or the British... you make great guns when you want to but man... you settle for some real crap ones. I can only hope that its a case of contract corruption rather than a real choice... or you need to shoot your 'aquirement and evaluation teams/brass'.
Comments
Simple mechanics, 30 bullet clip, easy to clean, very reliable and the 7.62 caliber gives it enough stopping power to put a man down with one shot for good.
It's cheap too, and a steady workhorse.
[B]Just assign the basic US ground pounders with the old reliable [URL=http://world.guns.ru/assault/as43-e.htm]RK-62[/URL].
Simple mechanics, 30 bullet clip, easy to clean, very reliable and the 7.62 caliber gives it enough stopping power to put a man down with one shot for good.
It's cheap too, and a steady workhorse. [/B][/QUOTE]
And accurate too. I've handled the RK-62, RK-76 and RK-95 and seen the next modification of it (although I'm not sure if it uses mechanics similar enough to be called as RK) in action... very nice piece of work, all of them.
As for the M16A2, I don't think it's a "Turkey" as of such, but it's still suffering from the stigma of unreliability and high-maintenance it gained in Vietnam. The A2 is a MAJOR step-up and has done its job well since the mid 80s. However, I agree on the size point, and the adoption of some sort of carbine but with rifle accuracy (such as the M4) is a must in modern warfare.
As for the RK62, have any of you guys tried firing an 7.62mm assault rifle on full automatic? (Eclecticonaut?) Unless you're engaging at close-medium range, these weapons are very difficult use on "rock and roll" and sacrifice a whole lot of accuracy.
The whole appeal with the smaller calibre 5.56 M16 was that you could fire it on automatic with practically NO recoil, and achieve the same accuracy as you could with a single shot.
Who needs to put a man down with one 7.62 slug when you can do the same with three 5.56s?
Regards,
Morden
Yes, I've tried full automatic mode too and yes, it is easy to miss the target even with quick bursts...
[quote]The whole appeal with the smaller calibre 5.56 M16 was that you could fire it on automatic with practically NO recoil, and achieve the same accuracy as you could with a single shot.
Who needs to put a man down with one 7.62 slug when you can do the same with three 5.56s?[/quote]...but the 7.62 caliber comes very handy when you have lots of trees between you and your target (Finland is practically one giant forest), it penetrates easily pines, spruces and birches and maintains enough strenght to cut down one blockhead.
It saves some of the ammo too... and if you lose your ammo, you can still steal some more from the enemy who propably uses AK-47 with 7.62's. :)
if you cant pick and double tap your target... you didnt sneak up on the bastard well enough, you didnt see him coming, or youre flat out, out of good karma.
I've fired everything upto a .303.
The FN/SLR is still a great tool.
Yes the latest M16 finally works... most of the time.
I just wish the Enfield SA80 was reliable. Made properly, perhaps in a well funded US armoury instead of in a cash strapped British factory it might be the best frikkin grunts gun out there. Provided they put the 7.62 back in. Accuracy, range, good overall length. It's heavy supposedly but I'd much rather heft something that works that a light pop gun.
[url]http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm[/url]
atleast the AUG works and it is comfortable. With a 7.62 it also may be the grunts tool of choice
By the way, the 7.62 NATO round is a different to the 7.62 Soviet round. Quickest way to turn your reciever into a nice frag grenade in your face is to try feeding it 'AK rounds'.
~~~~
If you cant get your first round on target, the likelyhood is youre already dead....
I'd much rather shoot a target with the biggest round I can find, than pepper him with 60 small ones.
this is the kind of 'rifle' I like..:D
[url]http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn46-e.htm[/url]
this piece has come a long way from this point but I doubt it will see service, until someone works out how cheap a round is in comparison to a missile.
blowing shit up is one thing, actually 'reducing combat effectiveness' of your enemy can be another
By the way, the 7.62 NATO round is a different to the 7.62 Soviet round. Quickest way to turn your reciever into a nice frag grenade in your face is to try feeding it 'AK rounds'.[/B][/QUOTE]
As I recall the AK-47's bolt can be mounted in the same carrier that RK-62 uses (but the RK-62's bolt cannot be inserted in AK)... or vice versa, I'm not sure which way was it.
[B]...but the 7.62 caliber comes very handy when you have lots of trees between you and your target (Finland is practically one giant forest), it penetrates easily pines, spruces and birches and maintains enough strenght to cut down one blockhead.
It saves some of the ammo too... and if you lose your ammo, you can still steal some more from the enemy who propably uses AK-47 with 7.62's. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
The penetration factor is an issue, yes, but finland is one particular enviroment, and the ordinary 5.56 bullet performs just as well in woodland enviroments, where standing behind trees in combat isn't considered wise!
Most 7.62 assault/SL rifles only come with 20-round magazines, whereas the M16 and modern NATO weapons have a 30-round capacity which compensates for the amount of ammo you use.
In addition, there is a marked size difference between 7.62mm NATO and the 7.62mm Soviet Intermidiate Power bullets. If your nation adopted a 7.62 rifle, and was fighting terrorist AK47 users, the ammunition wouldn't be compatible.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]when you train your soldier well... one bullet, one man... not spray and pray.
If you cant get your first round on target, the likelyhood is youre already dead....
I'd much rather shoot a target with the biggest round I can find, than pepper him with 60 small ones.[/B][/QUOTE]
One shot one kill is not as easy as it sounds, especially when you're shooting at moving targets. Soldiers are trained to fire bursts in a "sweep" motion before and at the moving target so that at least one bullet makes its mark. Firing at the same target single-shot requires extensive training and when you consider battlefield conditions, keeping your concentration is hard. In addition, your aim is thrown off after each shot, and you'd have to train your rifle again, by which time, your target may have escaped or gone to ground.
Firing on auto is NOT just considered "spray and pray", as apart from the above, firing bursts is often a crucial tactical accessory when wating to apply supressive fire on the enemy. (In other words, keeping the other b*stard's head down while your comrades advance.)
If a soldier can't get his first round on target, his second and third usually does when firing a burst. If not, it usually "inspries" his target to keep his head down. ;)
I also think you underestimate the stopping power of the 5.56 round, which has a tendancy to "roll" inside a target's body, causing a great amount of internal damage before exiting.
Regards,
Morden
This is the case with RK-62 too. Extremely close ranges are a different thing but still.
And in a real combat situation, everyone with any brains opts for many aimed single shots than a quick burst at the right direction. You don't have an unlimited supply of ammo...
[B]And in a real combat situation, everyone with any brains opts for many aimed single shots than a quick burst at the right direction. You don't have an unlimited supply of ammo... [/B][/QUOTE]
But there are many different combat situations in warfare.
The way you use your weapon is dependent on these different situations.
Anti-terrorist units such the SAS and Delta Force always opt for three-round bursts, especially at close quarters so that they KNOW their targets are down. When you're clearing a room, a burst for each target is quicker and more effective than single or double-tapping each one. If you used volleys or single shots, it gives the other targets close by time to respond and blow you away.
Single shots are fine at range, and far more accurate than a burst, but when you get up close and personal with the bad guys, you want to make sure they go down and stay down; and this where automatic comes into its own.
Ammunition supply is the soldier's own perrogative, and in modern warfare with its increadible logistics, especially among NATO armies, supply is usually not a problem. The individual infantryman should know when or not it's prudent to use single shots or automatic, and a trained soldier should only run out of ammunition in exceptional circumstances.
Regards,
Morden
[url]http://world.guns.ru/assault/as41-e.htm[/url]
the OICW is a nice weapon, but its a little bit to big for me. I think the US should go with the XM8, which is a rip off of the G36.
From my POV The M16 and the C7 arnt the best wepaons, Then tend to jam, when not cleaned.
Although those RK-xx rifles rules. :)
When I "did my time" I won the regiment's shooting contest with the rifle full of sand, it was hard to reload it for the first time but I didn't have any problems with it.
My NCO gave me a weird (aka don't ever again forget to clean it before shooting) look when I cleaned the gun after the contest :D
[B]the OICW is a nice weapon, but its a little bit to big for me. I think the US should go with the XM8, which is a rip off of the G36.
[/B][/QUOTE]
That's actually what the're doing, the initial post to the contrary was incorrect. One in four men in a squad is going to be equipped with the OICW to provide extra firepower.
[B]But there are many different combat situations in warfare.
The way you use your weapon is dependent on these different situations.
Anti-terrorist units such the SAS and Delta Force always opt for three-round bursts, especially at close quarters so that they KNOW their targets are down. When you're clearing a room, a burst for each target is quicker and more effective than single or double-tapping each one. If you used volleys or single shots, it gives the other targets close by time to respond and blow you away.
Single shots are fine at range, and far more accurate than a burst, but when you get up close and personal with the bad guys, you want to make sure they go down and stay down; and this where automatic comes into its own.
Regards,
Morden [/B][/QUOTE]
As said above: [i][b]This is the case with RK-62 too. Extremely close ranges are a different thing but still.
[/b][/i]
As said, in extremely close quarters battle where the target is at least half of your own size the rapid fire comes into play as a good solution.
And Simmonds: Yes, you're correct. They're a ripoff of the Ak-47. Just like every other automatic on the market is derived one way or the other from that... :D No, really... we live next to Russia so the AK-47 models were easy to get and designing one of our own was a simple choice after such a great and working solution. It's simple, but it's efficient and it works.
Plus I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of Finns on these boards above the age of 20 has fired quite a lot of rounds with that baby so we know 'how she handles'. ;)
it is a very nice weapon and as long as you are using the A2 no realiability problems.
[IMG]http://www.atk.com/productsPrecision/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/Block-3-Model.jpg[/IMG]
[URL=http://www.atk.com/productsPrecision/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/XM29.htm]Link[/URL]
[B]As said above: [i][b]This is the case with RK-62 too. Extremely close ranges are a different thing but still.
[/b][/i]
As said, in extremely close quarters battle where the target is at least half of your own size the rapid fire comes into play as a good solution. [/B][/QUOTE]
I apologise if I was repeating myself, but when I quoted you in my last post it seemed that I hadn't made my point. In any case, I was reiterating myself to the others as well. ;)
Aggamemnon, the SA80 still has problems, even after it's makeover by H+K a while back. The Marines used the new A2s when we invaded/liberated Afghanistan, and they still reported jamming problems, again due to material getting into the mechanism.
Regards,
Morden
[B]The OICW? I'm positive the US Armed Forces were going to adopt the OIC[b]R[/b] to replace the M16A2, it's smaller, simpler, and a lot less expensive to produce.
As for the M16A2, I don't think it's a "Turkey" as of such, but it's still suffering from the stigma of unreliability and high-maintenance it gained in Vietnam. The A2 is a MAJOR step-up and has done its job well since the mid 80s. However, I agree on the size point, and the adoption of some sort of carbine but with rifle accuracy (such as the M4) is a must in modern warfare.
As for the RK62, have any of you guys tried firing an 7.62mm assault rifle on full automatic? (Eclecticonaut?) Unless you're engaging at close-medium range, these weapons are very difficult use on "rock and roll" and sacrifice a whole lot of accuracy.
The whole appeal with the smaller calibre 5.56 M16 was that you could fire it on automatic with practically NO recoil, and achieve the same accuracy as you could with a single shot.
Who needs to put a man down with one 7.62 slug when you can do the same with three 5.56s?
Regards,
Morden [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry, Ive never been in the military, but Ive Used several different Ar-15s and frankly the action dumping gas and more importantly unburned poweder straight into the chamber is crap, odds are after 1000 rounds your gonna foul, and it not unheard to have fouling after 500.
Alot of guys talk about how their AR's never jam, thats because they are bench rest shooting them, and not taking them into a slighly damp and already dirty environment, with mags that have banged up lips and slighly dirty brass.. The AR systems isnt going to be as reliable as an oprod driven system just by design.
Dont know about the fins rifles they are all ga ga over. Ive never handled one or fired one. My biggest problem with most AK based designs is that they are terribly inaccurate, heck even the Israeli Galil isnt as acurate as the M16/AR-15.
What Id love to give a try is the swiss Sig-550, now that looks like a solid piece of work, or Japans current issue AR, they are both short oprod rotating bolt designs, the Japanese based of Stoners original AR-18 design and Sig off a combo of that and the AK.
the problem is with the AR ban getting a Sig in this country is impossible now :( unless one of you wonderfull europeans want to help me get one :D
Anyway I cant realy say whats a good gun or not, Becuase I have never used a gun and never will.
Well other then a paint ball gun.
[B]The XM-29(OICW) looks like this now.
[IMG]http://www.atk.com/productsPrecision/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/Block-3-Model.jpg[/IMG]
[URL=http://www.atk.com/productsPrecision/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/XM29.htm]Link[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE]
Me want! Who cares if it's good or not, it looks[i]cool[/i]. ;):cool:
Morden279: Ok, sorry no problem. Didn't get that at first.
[B]Sorry, Ive never been in the military, but Ive Used several different Ar-15s and frankly the action dumping gas and more importantly unburned poweder straight into the chamber is crap, odds are after 1000 rounds your gonna foul, and it not unheard to have fouling after 500. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's why any professional army has its soldiers practise strict rifle maintenance regimens, and you're encouraged to clean your rifle as much as possible, even in the field.
I've never heard of a soldier going through over 400 rounds in a single combat engagement unless under exceptional circumstances, so problems with jamming should be minimal.
Regards,
Morden
[B]That's why any professional army has its soldiers practise strict rifle maintenance regimens, and you're encouraged to clean your rifle as much as possible, even in the field.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's depends on weapon:
[URL]http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2727[/URL]:
[i]You think that british army rifles are good? I used to use them when I was in the army cadets and they are constantly jamming - and that was under the good conditions on the firing range.
I hear lots of british troops in Iraq have started picking up AK-47s now.[/i]
That's one area where RK-62 and RK-95 are very good, because these aren't sensitive to sand and snow and don't have lot of parts so they are easy to disassemble and clean.
Good image here:[url]http://practical.hypermart.net/ase-main.html[/url]
I could still disassemble and assemble it even in my dreams after two years of my military service. (still remember names of parts and phases of disassembling)
And they really work in snow and sand.
In FDF we train crawling "pretty" much and in that "work" you get sand inside everything:
After one field camp my cousin had sand everywhere, even inside his canteen! :D
[URL]http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/board4/messages/2178.html[/URL]
[URL]http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/messages/11249.html[/URL]
Also one reason for different accurasy are different sights:
[url]http://www.command-post.org/archives/003594.html[/url]:
[i] there's a big difference in the hardware. The Kalashnikov is designed for maximum reliability, and is built with loose tolerances. The sights are very crude, as well. The M-16, on the other hand, has much more precise sights, and is built to much tighter tolerances.[/i]
So good shooting with RKs require training because normal RKs have those crude sights.
And about that bigger recoil:
I admit it kicks propably much more than 5,56 but it's pretty easy to use single shot mode to put many rounds to target even at longer ranges in short time, I tryed it:
Three shots in time of under two seconds and they hit on nice line which was three inches long. (distance was 150 m)
(But I think with 7,62s there isn't need to put more than one shot to target)
Clip size is also 30 rounds so there isn't difference to 5,56 rifles in that area.
Many of you seem to think that three round burst is good mode with 5,56mms so have anyone of you tried it?
And I think accurasy isn't that great at longer ranges even it has lower recoil.
Recoil have tendency to kick weapon mainly to upward so if first round doesn't hit others will also very propably miss the target. (unless you aim lower than where target is)
[URL]http://www.strategypage.com/humor/default.asp?target=thennow.htm[/URL]:
[i]1945- Rifles were made of wood and steel, shot a .30 caliber bullet that killed the enemy.
Now- Rifles are made of plastic and aluminum, shoot a .22 caliber bullet that wounds the enemy.[/i] :D
BTW, I found this with google, but couldn't find more about it.
[url]http://www.warwitch.com/fin.html[/url]
[url]http://koti.mbnet.fi/tuunaes/Images/RK95 parts.jpg[/url]
(Lot of parts, or what you think? :D)
And other image about sights:
[url]http://koti.mbnet.fi/tuunaes/Images/RK sight.jpg[/url] (target looks big compared to sight, doesn't it? :D)
I took both images from "Soldier's handbook" with my digicam. This book is given to everyone who is in military service.
[B][i]You think that british army rifles are good? I used to use them when I was in the army cadets and they are constantly jamming - and that was under the good conditions on the firing range.
I hear lots of british troops in Iraq have started picking up AK-47s now.[/i]
there's a big difference in the hardware. The Kalashnikov is designed for maximum reliability, and is built with loose tolerances. The sights are very crude, as well. The M-16, on the other hand, has much more precise sights, and is built to much tighter tolerances.[/i]
So good shooting with RKs require training because normal RKs have those crude sights.
[/B][/QUOTE]
The rifle the cadets use is 3rd or 4th hand SA80 called the "Cadet GP" with the gas blow-back mechanism which allows automatic fire taken out, essentially making it a bolt-action rifle.
They constantly jam because they've been used as much as the town bicycle.
British troops picking up and using AKs in Iraq by choice is nonsense.
Your second paragraph proves that in a medium to long-ranged firefight in normal open conditions, you're screwed if you're the side with the AK. The M16 is a RIFLEMAN's weapon, and the trained rifleman is the tool of modern warfare, being aqble to put down sustained, accurate fire on the enemy.
The AK was designed by the Russians to be used en-masse, and to swamp the field with an unassailable wall of innaccurate but devastating short-range firepower. Remember Stalingrad? The AK was intended for close-quarters CITY FIGHTING.
Regards,
Morden
[B]Your second paragraph proves that in a medium to long-ranged firefight in normal open conditions, you're screwed if you're the side with the AK. The M16 is a RIFLEMAN's weapon, and the trained rifleman is the tool of modern warfare, being aqble to put down sustained, accurate fire on the enemy. [/B][/QUOTE]
Many years ago some US military group visited Finland and they brought their M16's with them to see how their top product would beat up Finnish RK-95 on a shooting range.
At first they tried static target shooting with their M16's versus Finnish soldiers shooting with RK-95 just to find out that RK-95 was more accurate in Finnish hands. Then they switched weapons and RK-95 proved its excellence again in American hands over the M16 in Finnish hands.
Of course I wasn't there to see it happen, but what I have learned of the capabilities of RK's, I can't really argue against that...
Have you personaly ever used a AR in good shape? I have and I know what they can do, especialy once you put decent optics on it. I mean hitting a pop can at 300 yards becomes childs play. Now what was cool was when my friend tied said popcan to a stand by thin rope and then managed to on his second shot sever that rope, and this was at about a 100 yards. then again this was with a 1800 dollar Bushmaster competion AR mounting a leupold tactical scope.
Id like to compare the two though, any fins wanna ship me one to try out?! ;)
damned AR ban, PLEASE PLEASE SUNSET NEXT YEAR! :(
[B]Many years ago some US military group visited Finland and they brought their M16's with them to see how their top product would beat up Finnish RK-95 on a shooting range...[/B][/QUOTE]
This is something like that:
[url]http://www.warwitch.com/fin.html[/url]
BTW It's pretty hard to find forest here in Finland where you could see well over distance of 100-150 m because trees and underbrush.
(finnish forest aren't like forrests in computer games where there's one tree here, other there.)
That's also where bigger 7,62 bullet is good:
In Soldier's handbook there are safety thicknesses for against handgun fire and it's 0,6 m for wood.
Because Russia has always been Finland's "number one" enemy there's good reason to assume that this thickness is against 7,62 mm rounds.
That means these rounds go easily through smaller trees and underbrush.