Small Arms and Ammunition

I once came across a MG-3 were you could still read MG-42, with the 42 just being "X-ed out" so much to it's eminence.

Well I'm not really proficiant in Infantrythings. Maybe I can find out more with some time.
What I hear and read is a little contradictionary. The MG-3 is to be retained on vehicles for the time being (what ever that means). Platforms where it easily can and should stay. However, the plans to mount a MG-4 (wich I still think is stupid) on the Puma seems to support that the -3 is to be phased out.
I often come across statements that the -4 is primarily for the squad level at first, and there are "heavy weapon platoons" in some infanrtry companies, maybe they will retain it for a while, especially on a mount. Phasing them all out will take time anyway.
After some 60+ years of service, a retirement may be well deserved. The HK-21 may have been an option, but that's also a rather old one. It seems a replacement is looked for. I'm hearing rumors of plans for a cal.50gun, wich then would be too heavy again, IMO.

Our decision making guys at Hammelburg (the infantryschool of the Heer) seem not to be that sure themselves what they shell think about it.

So, I can't give you a definite answer here. However, to me it seems a rather strong point behind those procedures is what planing people think the BW might have to exspect in the future. That's low to medium intensity conflicts featuring peace support ops and so on, somewhat discounting the possibility of a more conventional conflict.

The GMG seems to be a preferred option for new vehicles APC (MG-3 is also possible) and the scout car. Though it can be dismounted, I think it's not to make it's way to the infantry as MMG replacements. But it seems to gain friends.

All I could tell you so far, regards ...

It's a very interesting documentary about the M-16 and the problems related to it.

Interesting PBS News Hour piece. The whole subject seemed quite unfamiliar to the reporter at PBS and he seemed to struggle with it, but given that, it was still an interesting story. It really tells you something when one of the guys who helped develop the M-16 would rather have his son carry an AK into battle.

There are four basic things that any personal weapon of the infantryman must be able to do consistently:

1. Shoot when fired, all the time, every time. The M-16 gets 1/2 a star for this, the AK gets a full star. It seems that short of diving underwater or simply not having a round in the chamber is just about the only way you are going to get an AK not to fire (that, or removing the firing pin from the bolt and/or the primer from the ammo).

2. Hit what it shoots at. This is the M-16's biggest virtue (besides its ease of handling, but that's secondary to the four things listed here). The M-16 and M-16A1 would hit what they shot at, but only to 300m, but M-16A@ and subsequent rifle variants will hit at over 500m. So a full star for the current M-16 versions, 1/2 star for the older. AK is at best accurate only to 300m (especially if you don't clean the barrel - dirts seems to fill in those little pits in the rifling), so it only gets 1/2 a star. Still, almost 90% of firefights occur within 300m, and almost all the rest within 400m, so that 1/2 star for the AK really should be about 3/4.

3. Drop what it hits. There aren't too many people who complain about AK's firing 7.62mmx39mm about stopping power, although there are some who might about AK's in 5.45mmx39mm (beyond 200m); 1 star for AK-47/AKM, 1/2star for AK-74. M-16 - about the same as AK-74, so 1/2 star (it actually has better stopping power after it has penetrated body armour, than if it hits someone who's not wearing body armour - go figure.

4. Take any reasonable (and unreasonable, including driving over it with a tank) amount of abuse, neglect, and incompetence (and then add some more), and then be used to butt-stroke and/or club a few guys, and then keep shooting when fired as if nothing at all happened. The AK - A little kerosene/gasoline/alcohol/the troops' own home-made hooch, a little motor oil received in exchange from vehicle crews for said hooch, some rags cut into little pieces, and a few scrounged cleaning tools, and proper maintenance can be carried out not less then once or twice a year - 1 Big star for the AK. M-16, well, assuming cleaning kits are available (including cleaning patches), the CLP disappears (except at cleaning time, and for demonstration purposes only) and is replaced with something like Hoppes' No.9powder solvent for cleaning and gun oil for lubrication and protection, and there is a reasonable amount of time for said cleaning time, and there are at least a few to several such cleaning times per day, then I might be inclined to give it 1/2 star. But usually there is little time for cleaning, little in the way of cleaning tools and supplies (although that's actually an improvement in the case of the CLP), and if you drop an M-16 hard, let alone hit someone with it, well, it won't be shooting anymore, and it might not even be in one piece - so, M-16, a Big Fat 0. And not to forget, an M-16 requires well-trained, well-disciplined troops to really make it work, and keep it working. Anyone can use an AK, you, me, grandma, the kid down the street, maybe even your dog (because if he steps on that trigger, you know it's going to go off).

So, out of the 4 most important factors, the final results are:

AK-47/AKM - 3 and 1/2 stars out of 4.

AK-74 - 3 stars out of 4.

M-16/M-16A1 - 1 and 1/2 stars out of 4.

M-16A2 and subsequent versions - 2 stars out of 4.

There are a lot of good things about the M-16, and a lot of bad things about the AK. But none of them matter in the same way as these four factors, and these are what really matter most of the time for the infantryman. And based on those factors, the early M-16s are a failure, the current M-16s are a mediocrity, the current AK-74 is fair, and the AK-47/AKM is good, maybe even very good.

Norfolk, what is your opinion on the AK-100 series such as the AK-103, the assault rifle Venenzuala has purchased from Russia? Here's one of the best producers of AK-103's in the US:



There are some wacky videos too of the AK's in action.

This is an interesting brochure, crazyinsane105, especially when you realize that most of what they're selling (presumably because that's what people are buying) are NATO 5.56mm, and a lot of them with short barrels. That said,
I think that, with the qualification that I am unfamiliar with any wartime performance reports (if any outside SF) that there may or may not be regarding the AK-100-Series, the original AK-103 in 7.62mmx39mm is fine, probably very fine (and may be more accurate than AK-47/AKM with that AK-74M compensator fitted), but I have doubts about the AK-103K. With the shorter barrel and its lighter weight (less accuracy on both counts) and I suspect taking two inches off the barrel may affect its ability to drop targets somewhat, especially between 200-300m. Shorter and lighter is not always better. I see that most of the rest are NATO 5.56mm, and many of them have short barrels at that. What do people expect to do with a 5.56mm with a 12" barrel? Plug squirrels that come up to you looking for walnuts as you sit on a bench in your local park?:nono:

If you want to shorten the length of a rifle, go to a Bullpup, not a shorter barrel. But bear in mind that while such a rifle (really a carbine) is perfect for the assault role and quite adequate out to 400m, if you want longer-range shooting beyond that, you need a rifle (ideally with a bipod). Yes, the barrel of a Bullpup carbine and a standard rifle may fire the same cartridge from the same length of barrel, but they are held and aimed differently for two reasons: 1. Weight distribution is different (Bullpup carbines are rear-heavy which makes them more susceptible to recoil forces jerking the muzzle upwards, while standard rifles tend to be more balanced, and fixing a bayonet on either actually improves accuracy while firing as the weight of the bayonet reduces the effects of recoil); and 2. The distance between sights is different, with a shorter distance between rear and front sights on Bullpup carbines and a longer distance between them on standard rifles (as well as a longer stock to comfortably space out your grip on the weapon).

Conversion from the latter to the former can throw even good shooters off a little for a while until they get used to the difference. Still, standard rifles retain an edge in ease of aiming and subsequently accuracy compared to Bullpups, for both reasons outlined.

I think that AK-USA is likely offering quite a good weapon in the straight AK-103, so far as I can tell anyway. But I wouldn't touch the other AK-100s unless I had no other choice, or if the other choice was an M-16 or SA-80.

That said, bullpups have got a few problems. You get to inhale all the propellant gases you coud ever want from the chamber, as the ejection port is literally right under you nose, and you can't switch the bullpup from side to side (like when each man has to alternate arcs while on the patrol for example) without getting a face full of brass if you have to shoot left-handed (and while some bullpups allow you to change the side the ejection port is on, it takes a few minutes to do so, so it's not very practical in the field). Bullpups are not comfortable to shoot, and that is not conducive to good marksmanship (there are very good reasons the bullpups presently in service came out from the start with optical sights, otherwise, the troop's accuracy would have taken a bit of a dive with just iron sights).

Besides, if you ever have to bayonet someone in a trench using a bullpup and they've got a standard rifle with a fixed bayonet, you've just gotten the short end of the stick, so to speak.

This is a very interesting weapon. The AN-94 Abakan 5.45mmx39mm (like all Soviet 5.45mm rounds, the bullet diameter is actually 5.62mm) assault rifle is a very sophisticated weapon, and doubles as a sort of light sniper rifle to boot. For the last few years, this rifle has raised a lot of eyebrows, both for its sophistication and the secrecy surrounding it until recent years.

So far, the AN-94 Abakan ("Abakan" being its project name) has been illegal to export outside of Russia, and even insider Russia it is only issued to special, and highly-trained, military, paramilitary, and police units. It is not a general or even an optional issue for units other than these.

The most fascinating, and innovative feature of the AN-94 Abakan assault rifle is its ability to automatically "double-tap", and to do so so quickly that the recoil forces of the first round fired do not come into play until after the second round is also out of the barrel. Another source claims that by doing so, the AN-94 will put both bullets through the same hole at range. Here's a link:




This is clearly not the sort of weapon that anyone can just use, at least to use it correctly and keep it functioning properly. I think the AK is going to be standard-issue for a long time to come.

AK is. This rifle is harder to maintain also, not as reliable, and all that fancy stuff isn't necessary for putting a man down anyway.

For the bullet, I don't think it fits the gun's role, at least not the 2 round burst.

The FN Mark 48 MOD 0 7.62mmx51mm Light Machine Gun version of the FN Minimi 5.56mmx45mm Light Machine Gun developed for US Special Forces has been developed into a mainstream 7.62mm version of the Minimi LMG. The apparent success of the Mk 48 with the 7.62mm round and persistent discontent of many with the 5.56mm round has led FN to offer the Minimi in the tried-and-true larger calibre.

The Mark 48 Mod 0:



There are very slight differences in the specs between the Mk 48 and the 7.62mm Minimi.

The FN Minimi7.62mm:



Scroll down to "New Minimi: Lightweight Machine Gun 7.62x51mm" and go to "click here".

and:



Edit. Note: Link not working; Google it.

While the FN Herstal specifications gives the effective range of the Mk 48 as being 1,000m, the 800m range of the FN Minimi 7.62mm given by the Military.com article is rather more realistic without the use of a tripod. Compared to an actual effective range of 500-600m for the 5.56mm Minimi, with a harder-hitting round on top of that, and the Rifle Squads/Sections would considerably increase their firepower if their 5.56mm LMGs were replaced with the 7.62mm Minimi.

As the FN Herstal piece states, the FM Minimi in 7.62mm weighs than 19 pounds (unloaded) compared to the FM MAG 58 which is nearly 27 pounds (unloaded) along with 600 rds of 7.62 mm link (having been both a Minimi LMG gunner and a MAG GPMG gunner, the 600 rds of 7.62m link carried by the gunner is maybe a little much, practically speaking - it's a lot of weight). A Minimi 5.56mm LMG gunner should normally carry around 800 rounds, not least because the 5.56mm round does not have the same "cone of fire" as the 7.62mm, making it less effective overall.

I suspect that the 7.62mm Minimi is somewhat more reliable than the 5.56mm, given that the magazine well of the 5.56mm is deleted (which also saves weight), and the 7.62mm round has less velocity, resulting in somewhat less heating of the barrel due to friction caused by the higher velocity 5.56mm round, leading to jams/runaway guns, misfires, etc. Overall, potentially a noticeable improvement for those infantry units priviledged to receive the Minimi 7.62mm LMG in place of 5.56mm LMGs.

The FN Minimi 7.62mm LMG; nice piece of kit.

This is the Mcmillan TAC-50 antimateriel rifle, used as a sniper rifle in Afghanistan to take out Taleban heavy-weapons crews - including the world's longest confirmed direct hit at 2,430 m by a sniper from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in the fight on Whaleback Mountain in the Shah-i-kot Valley during Operation Anaconda in 2002.

From CASR:

Quote:

Long Range Sniper Weapon – McMillan’s ‘Big Mac’

The .50-caliber or 12.7mm McMillan Tac-50 became the ‘interim’ Canadian Long Range Sniper Weapon in 2000. Since then, the “Big Mac” has established a fearsome reputation ( including a record sniping distance shot – 2430m set by a 3PPCLI sniper in 2002 during fighting in the Shah-i-kot). But the McMillan rifle was never meant to act as a primary sniper’s weapon. Original interest in the Tac-50 came from engineers who required a weapon powerful enough to penetrate the casings of unexploded ordnance. Afghanistan would expand the repertoire.

-Unquote



And here's a YouTube video of a TAC-50 firing - there's a few others besides: