Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: M16

  1. #1 M16 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    It's funny. For any of you that have ever shot an M16, you might know where I'm coming from.

    In boot camp, we were given our M16-A2 service rifles (we were one of the last companies to use the A2, It will now be replaced with the A4) at the very beginning of boot camp. Every day, we would learn to march and drill for the first month. That thing would go everywhere with us. When you look at that weapon, and hold it, it is surprising! It feels rickety, and unstable. Not very many of us believed that the ones given to us for drilling would be the same ones that we would be shooting because of this. We were afraid that they would fall apart! Than, we received about one and a half weeks of schooling, and most everyone was able to hit the black on a b-mod target (the one that looks like a man's torso) from 500 yards (457.2 meters) away! It just made me think. The best engineering, makes exactly what is needed, and DOES IT CHEAPLY. It's beautiful, how the creators of the M16 were able to do what they did.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA, VA
    Posts
    102
    i guess, i've never used an M-16 so i dont know what your talking about, but as for the cost of a weapon for combat purposes, im not sure i'd want the cheapest one...

    as for the shot, im not real great with distances but with open sights thats a pretty damn good shot. were you all prone or using a stand or prop or something?


    Taken Down, With Hearts Alive
    Our Hearts Alive
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    500 yards prone, 300 yards sitting, kneeling, and prone, 100 yards standing and, I believe kneeling? I can't quite remember what we did for the 100 yard.

    The secret of engineering to make it amazingly effective and cheap. If you could buy a Lamborghini for $10,000, or a Honda Civic for $14,000, which would you buy? Quality is not always expensive. That is why the M16 is amazing. It doesn't look like much, even until right until you take it for a spin. Virtually no kick, accurate, cheep, lightweight, and extremely easy to maintain.

    The AK47 is one of the most useful weapons out there for countries and smaller groups (like the terrorists) for that exact reason. They're amazingly cheep, and easy to maintain, for the price it is a great weapon (though anything we use blows it out of the water) The fact that it is so easily mass produced, and that it is so easy to learn how to use effectively, makes a weapon that is not quite as accurate, and has a much shorter range, the most used assault rifle in the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderwolf
    The AK47 is one of the most useful weapons out there for countries and smaller groups (like the terrorists) for that exact reason. They're amazingly cheep, and easy to maintain, for the price it is a great weapon (though anything we use blows it out of the water) The fact that it is so easily mass produced, and that it is so easy to learn how to use effectively, makes a weapon that is not quite as accurate, and has a much shorter range, the most used assault rifle in the world.
    There are long standing arguments that the M16, for the price, is not the solution to the AK47. The only thing I can conclusively say about the M16 is that the recoil is better and it's more accurate. At what price, though? Civillian/police M16's are reported at around $2,000 each, meanwhile AK47's are priced anywhere from $100-350, and in areas of high production lower than $20.

    The result? The AK-47 has slightly less range and more kickback, but it still delivers a decent fire rate and destructive power. I'm not suggesting we go back in time for the definitely outdated AK-47, I'm suggesting we find more cost effective methods of making our weapons. At the price of an AK-47 in the middle-east you could arm hundreds of people for the cost of a single M16, and the price only goes up for the M4.

    So it comes down to what's better. 5 AK-47's in trained hands or 1 M16 in trained hands. Of course we would never have such a situation, but look at the budget of the military. It's sapping a huge portion of the U.S. economy and making very little progress at the same time. I say we go for something cheap and reliable, much like the AK-47.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA, VA
    Posts
    102
    well the cost of the AK is soly contributed to the way it's made. stamped steel. this si like somparing the old sten sub machine gun to the thompson sumb machine gun's of WWII

    by comparison the sten was by far much cheaper to produce than a thompson. adn eventually the sten became gradualy more occuring.

    but in the end these arguments are really pointless, both guns have there advantages and disadvantages. weather financial or preformance wise.

    in my own opinion i'd rather have an M-16. i love the AK and i even own an SKS, but the M-16 is just so much more versitle IMO. but one department it lacks in is punch. no 5.56 will ever match a 7.62, thats just facts, this is why the AK has shorter ranges and more recoil. The way the M-16 makes up for that is the different attatchments it has, like the .50 cal beowulf barrel replacement. for that matter i think you can chamber a M-16 in any caliber as long as you get the right replacement barrel? no?
    Taken Down, With Hearts Alive
    Our Hearts Alive
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I think with a few modifications the Kalashnikov design could be very similar to the M16/M4. For example, changing bullet size to 5.45x39 (which was done in the AK74) is a bonus, but so would be changing the recoil path so it recoils backwards rather than upwards (which the AK-47 and the M14 were aggrivatingly notorious for). Combine it with some better sights and you have yourself a ridiculously cheap better performing weapon. Probably not quite as good as the M16, but I would be curious to know the results. To my knowledge the AK-74 and all later Kalashnikov style guns just got more expensive like the M-X series.

    One of the bonuses of the M-X series is light weight as well, though. The Kalashnikov series is somewhat heavier, but at least it feels like it won't fall apart on you
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    for that matter i think you can chamber a M-16 in any caliber as long as you get the right replacement barrel? no?
    No. You need to change the receiver as well which adds to reliability issues.

    well the cost of the AK is soly contributed to the way it's made. stamped steel
    Not all variants are stamped steel. If i'm not mistaken it's the stamped the Yugoslavian ones which actually tend to be a bit more reliable.

    The M-16 and AK-47 are hardly the only two weapons available. They're just the ones people hear about on TV. The Kalashnikov is over 60 years old and is well beyond consideration for use in a professional well trained army. The M-16 is not cheap, nor is it accurate compared with other NATO assault rifles. In fact it falls behind other STANAG weapons by almost every measure.

    Accuracy is not the only matter of concern, reliability is the AR series' downfall. The weapon doesn't always go bang when you pull the trigger. I would love to see the U.S. military adopt the L-85 A2. A bull-pup, accurate, reliable and often coupled with the nifty SUSAT scope.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I do not like the SA-80 series because the ammo is in the back, thus making it bulkier to reload. Almost every gun so far has the sense to put the ammo in the front for the fastest and slickest reload times. In this sense the M16 is probably better, as it has the clip in the front (as do most rifles or automatics). If you ask me the clip just seems to be in the way with the current configuration, although I do not know if it has jamming benefits with its current placement. The SA-80 series, as a whole, does not really seem to be that good when you compare it to the M16.

    Although, now that I think about it, the M4 carbine seems to be the solution to everyones problems. It appears to have similar design to the AK series and includes a curved clip (which, by the way, is in the front), very good sights, and is overall a decent weapon...except for the fact it sucks. The main problem is the clip and that ridiculous "shield" around the area where it snaps in, which slows the loading process and reduces the window for error. Ironically all of its major problems could be fixed by designing the clip and insertion area like an AK-47. I guess nobody reads the history books.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I do not like the SA-80 series because the ammo is in the back, thus making it bulkier to reload.
    The bullpup design "ammo in the back" does not in my experience, reduce reload time significantly enough to outweigh the benefit. Putting the receiver in the rear changes the weight balance making the weapon point faster. It also eliminates wasted space thus shortening the weapon.

    Although, now that I think about it, the M4 carbine seems to be the solution to everyones problems. It appears to have similar design to the AK series and includes a curved clip (which, by the way, is in the front), very good sights, and is overall a decent weapon...except for the fact it sucks. The main problem is the clip and that ridiculous "shield" around the area where it snaps in, which slows the loading process and reduces the window for error. Ironically all of its major problems could be fixed by designing the clip and insertion area like an AK-47. I guess nobody reads the history books.
    It's called a magazine, not a clip. Most magazines are curved. That "shield" is a magazine well. It is common and helps protect the weapon from dust. Not a reload problem. If you want to discuss difficult ergonomics, Kalashnikov variants put the selector switch on the right side of the weapon forcing you to remove your hand from the pistol grip, they are barrel heavy, not modular (no standard RIS rail or equivalent), and they only allow optics to be mounted on the left side which throws off the weight and blocks folding stocks.

    The SA-80 series, as a whole, does not really seem to be that good when you compare it to the M16.
    How so?
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    I admit some ignorance prior to your last post (incidentally, CLIP is also an accepted term for "magazine", but I'll use "magazine" to make you happy), but I have spent a considerable amount of time formulating my response. I wish to illustrate some basic problems with the M16/M4 and what we should have learned from the history of the AK-47, which is what I originally intended to do.

    Firstly, it's my personal opinion that the AK-47 magazines were slightly more curved, which facilitated an easier magazine replacement for the AK-47's loading mechanism. After comparing the two magazines, I maintain my opinion. If the magazine was loaded in a sliding motion similar to the AK-47, a more curved magazine would be required. I also believe that, due to the space provided by said magazine, it's much easier to maneuver the gun around (which is useful in the event of close combat). The question is NOT whether other guns have said curve, it's how much is just right (duh).

    video 1 demonstrates an inherent jamming problem in the M16 and similar models due to earlier than needed bolt rotation. The AK avoids this entirely by not having said rotation, which is lesson 1.

    In comparing the SA80 series with the M16/4 and pretty much any assault rifle with the magazine in the front of the trigger, it's obvious the SA80 has more accuracy due to barrel length, yet the short distance from the shoulder rest to the magazine creates more recoil (this is bad for fully automatic, but less so because the recoil moves the gun backwards) and makes it a bit difficult to reload due to the small range of motion required. The design may make you think it lessens the travel distance, but in reality it does not. If you are right handed and reload with your left hand, your left hand still has to return to the grip for accurate firing. This is an extra motor control movement that should not be required. So you not only travel the same distance, you have to do more actions in that distance.

    Another problem with the SA80 is that it's a primarily right-shouldered weapon. Firing it from the left shoulder is slightly more difficult, and the unloading mechanism is also on the left side. There is a full list of criticisms here for review.

    In all honesty, I would not want any of these weapons going into combat. Although the least shitty of them appears to be the M4. Remembering that assault rifles are general-purpose medium-short range weapons, though, in an urban combat scenario I would much prefer the FN-P90, which is probably the best urban warfare short-distance gun ever made, and teaches some further lessons that could be applied to the future "M" series. Although I would not recommend loading from the butt end for an assault rifle (It's okay for the FN-P90 because it's not meant for medium-range automatic fire).

    The AK-47 teaches us to use a sliding mechanism for very simple reloading and looser machine parts to prevent jamming from sand and so on. The M16/4 provide modern mechanisms for magazine reloading (and not to use a jam prone bolt), the SA80 is a story of what NOT to do, etc. Remember: Assault rifles are general purpose MEDIUM RANGE weapons. The SA80 appears to be attempting to bridge the gap between medium-long range and in doing so introduced a host of new problems.

    Short range: FN-P90.
    Medium Range: M4+AK-47=perfect weapon
    Long range: SA80+this

    Then, sir, you have the perfect arsenal.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Clip is not an accepted term for "magazine."
    http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1323705

    You discuss minor ergonomic issues with weapons. The user adapts to the mechanics when they offer performance and functional benefits. I've never heard a complaint about magazine curvature. If one were really concerned, after market magazines can be found for most weapons that have different shape, size and capacity depending on manufacture. Not sure what you mean by "sliding motion" of the Kalashnikov series' reload. The magazine is rocked into place:
    http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=O7hi20...eature=related

    The L85's reload is not significantly hampered by it's design. "Ammo in the back" is called bullpup. This is actually an easier position for reloading with the L86.
    http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=jVQiz7...eature=related
    My only real gripe about bullpups is that firing weak hand is not possible because of the ejector port placement, although the FN2000 has resolved this issue.

    As to whether placement of the action affects recoil:
    "You can't shoot a bullpop well by instinct. And bullpubs have more problems with the recoil." Actually thats the opposite of the Australian Army experienced with the Steyr. - Virgin shooters were able to get much tighter groupings and a lot faster than on the M16's, M4's and SLR's. - on the weapons trials, shooters found the weapons easier to manage on recoil "creep" - tighter and more consistent groupings was invariably attributed to easier weapons management and less recoil through the 3 typical axis of movement.
    If the user has a problem with the 5.56's recoil in a main battle rifle, he needs a new line of work. Bullpups have less muzzle blast and potentially less muzzle climb (AK's pull to the side).
    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/bullpups.htm
    Read the criticism portion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullpup

    The website you referenced criticizing the L85 was outdated and misinformed. The writer was talking about the L85A1 variant. After a difficult gestation period, the L85A2 has come a long way.

    You recommend the P90 (personal defense weapon) for CQB. It uses the 5.7mm round which offers poor ballistics. It designed to defeat armor. Submachine guns in general have fallen into disuse because larger caliber weapons are now compact enough to fill the role. In any case, you can't always carry three different weapons about for use in close, intermediate and long ranges, all chambered for a different type of ammunition. If you're mucking about with your little personal defense weapon and begin to receive mortar fire, you need to quickly engage the new threat at the new range immediately. You can't very well return to the vehicle, sort through your team's already excessive collection of gear, put on a new assault vest with ammo, ect. If we're going to talk about a choice personal weapon, give me something with some real porn star recoil like a FAL OSW.

    Please pardon the condescending tone.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    It would appear that your response, although containing some additional facts I missed, is reduced mostly to the opinions of various people as much as mine was (if not moreso). It's clear, then, that there is not an empirical method to decide on the best gun, and I refuse to rely on "He said she said". However, I take strong issue with what you said about the FN-P90, and can empirically prove a few things.

    You recommend the P90 (personal defense weapon) for CQB. It uses the 5.7mm round which offers poor ballistics. It designed to defeat armor.
    You word this as though you're proving me wrong when I never said it had good ballistics to begin with. I specifically listed it for close range because it's great for penetrating armor. This was my intention.

    Submachine guns in general have fallen into disuse because larger caliber weapons are now compact enough to fill the role.
    Not half as good as the P90 fills its own role. The P90 is small enough and light enough to fit in just about any combat outfit without weighing anything down. In spite of how assault rifles have "improved" over the years, the FN-P90 still reigns as a submachine gun. At 900 rounds a minute and a 50 round magazine it has enough power to take down anything within range. This is especially useful for urban combat scenarios (typically what you see in Iraq cities).

    If you're mucking about with your little personal defense weapon and begin to receive mortar fire, you need to quickly engage the new threat at the new range immediately.
    Another reason the FN-P90 should be standard issue. It's small, lightweight, and can be put just about anywhere. The only thing that MIGHT be an issue is that assault rifles use higher caliber rounds, but with an "upgrade" it could probably be made to use similar rounds while maintaining (more or less) the same weight and size.

    If we're going to talk about a choice personal weapon, give me something with some real porn star recoil like a FAL OSW.
    Too large. I chose the FN-P90 specifically for low weight and size so you can carry it on top of an assault rifle or any other weapon.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232


    Nice. I still prefer a Samurai sword though...
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Indeed, it is an impressive weapon, but if you carry around 4.2kg all day you really don't feel that great. The M4 itself weighs only 3.1kg
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    It's clear, then, that there is not an empirical method to decide on the best gun, and I refuse to rely on "He said she said". However, I take strong issue with what you said about the FN-P90, and can empirically prove a few things.
    You didn't empirically prove anything but I'll give it a go.

    MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure)
    L85A2: 31,500
    UK (Temperate) - 31,500
    Brunei (Hot/Wet) - 31,500
    Kuwait (Hot/Dry) - 7,875
    Alaska (Cold/Dry) - 31,500

    MTBF AN-94: over 10,000

    It's tough to find MTBF ratings. Manufacturers don't like releasing them. A little math and you can find the MTBF for these weapons:

    Number of stoppages in 60,000 rounds
    XM8: 127 stoppages.
    MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
    416: 233 stoppages.
    M4: 882 stoppages.

    Indeed, it is an impressive weapon, but if you carry around 4.2kg all day you really don't feel that great. The M4 itself weighs only 3.1kg
    You'll feel fine, it's not that heavy. That's why soldiers and Marines exercise. Many weapons in the standard loadout are quite a lot bigger.

    As for the P90, at the moment it looks like google's servers have crashed so I can't add much more. Plus, at the moment I'm a bit bored of going over research I've already reviewed many times before in other pursuits but ballistics data with penetration, cavitation and fragmenting info is easy to find. A basic resource: 5.7x28 (P90 round) It was designed for penetrating armor. The guys who use this are the ones generally wearing the armor. Militants in say, Iraq and Afghanistan are incredibly lucky to get a hold of armor. Not an issue.

    The P90 is ideal for security scenarios such as the U.S. Secret Service uses them for but it is certainly not a serious battle rifle. It was never intended as such. Not a spectacular weapon. You can't even perform a proper tactical reload.

    Another reason the FN-P90 should be standard issue. It's small, lightweight, and can be put just about anywhere. The only thing that MIGHT be an issue is that assault rifles use higher caliber rounds, but with an "upgrade" it could probably be made to use similar rounds while maintaining (more or less) the same weight and size.
    You can't just "upgrade" the P90 to fire a rifle round. It has a complex feed mechanism and crazy receiver that doesn't lend itself to this kind of modification. Why would you anyway? It has no exceptional merits except that it's compact, though as submachine guns go, that's a common trait. And you can't just have this issued standard and have average Joe sling it on his back. It doesn't work like that bro. You know how much gear you have to pack on each guy already? It's not just weight, you don't have space for superfluous junk. Now you've got another weapon and ammunition to find space for too? Why? If you're so infatuated with the size and cartridge, go with a FN Five-Seven pistol.

    The P90 is a weapon people get excited about because it looks neato. There is always a huge buzz around unique looking weapons among non-professionals but the hype about P90's is mainly aesthetic. And I hate Stargate
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    You'll feel fine, it's not that heavy. That's why soldiers and Marines exercise. Many weapons in the standard loadout are quite a lot bigger.
    I wear 5kg worth of weight all day long as part of a passive personal training regime and have for some years. I can assure you, even if you're "used" to it, in a combat scenario it would NOT be something you would want to drag around. That extra weight matters, especially if you have to retreat or do any kind of running. It's clear from this you're not going on any sort of experience whatsoever. That extra 1kg could mean an extra 5 miles or more before complete exhaustion.

    A basic resource: 5.7x28 (P90 round) It was designed for penetrating armor. The guys who use this are the ones generally wearing the armor. Militants in say, Iraq and Afghanistan are incredibly lucky to get a hold of armor. Not an issue.
    That was the first place I looked I can assure you. Are you willing to chance everything based on the fact most terrorists probably don't have body armor to toss away a small 3kg (loaded) weapon that's VERY cheap, light weight, and with superb short-range fighting capabilities? On top of that it's so small it would be impossible to attempt a disarmament. For short range it is king.

    The P90 is ideal for security scenarios such as the U.S. Secret Service uses them for but it is certainly not a serious battle rifle. It was never intended as such. It's short but that's it. Not a spectacular weapon. You can't even perform a tactical reload.
    Um...? I'm not advising it be used as a replacement for a rifle. I'm advising it be used as a supplement. Also, I have no idea where you get the claim that you cannot perform a tactical reload.

    You can't just "upgrade" the P90 to fire a rifle round.
    Am I the only one that notices quotes around my own words, which strongly suggests they're to be taken with a grain of salt if not heavy interpretation? You, sir, are beginning to annoy me with these straw man tactics.

    And you can't just have this issued standard and have average Joe sling it on his back.
    No. Really? Maybe that's why I emphasized the fact it's the smallest and most useful submachine gun when you factor in size, effective range, weight, and so on. Useless indeed. Your NEXT suggestion is TRUELY useless and shows you are even more ignorant of modern weaponry than I admit to being! The benefit of it being used as a short range or emergency weapon is the fact its cartridges weigh far less than normal ones and are ALSO rather easy to add on to combat gear.

    If you're so infatuated with the size and cartridge, go with a FN Five-Seven pistol.
    Yes. Sure. I want to go with something that has an effective range of 55 fucking yards. Why not just arm everyone with swords! This suggestion is absolutely ridiculous!
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    It's clear from this you're not going on any sort of experience whatsoever.
    US Army
    Combat Medic
    2nd Infantry Division

    What do you do for a living buddy?
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Yet you choose a weapon with an effective range of 55 yards. Let me revise my opinion: You have experience, but you're still retarded. This is of course assuming you're telling the truth. With how you shrugged off the 1kg weight difference I'm inclined to believe you are not.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    I'm actually rather enjoying myself, it's always stimulating to dig up research like this in a healthy disagreement. For future reference, unpleasant, cranky, guys like me feed on your irritation. Relax and respond with educated answers.

    This is of course assuming you're telling the truth. With how you shrugged off the 1kg weight difference I'm inclined to believe you are not.
    An infantry squad generally carries two M249's weighing 5.9 kg each, loaded.

    Yet you choose a weapon with an effective range of 55 yards. Let me revise my opinion: You have experience, but you're still retarded.
    Yup. It is a retarded weapon for this application. Aren't we talking about CQB? Pretty sure most Iraqi homes are less than 55yards long. I said that if you were infatuated with something compact, chambered for 5.7mm, that'll do, even though you're 99% likely to encounter an unarmored target which has a reasonable chance of eating your 5.7 and asking for seconds. A Kimber 1911 loaded with Hydra Shock would be a bit more suitable for the size.

    In any case, I would prefer an effective assault rifle as I previously asserted. Kind of my main thesis, right?

    And you never told me what you do for a living.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    I'm actually rather enjoying myself, it's always stimulating to dig up research like this in a healthy disagreement. For future reference, unpleasant, cranky, guys like me feed on your irritation. Relax and respond with educated answers.
    Were I hooked up to a monitoring device my heart would not be beating a single beat faster than it normally does (A healthy 60BPM). The only thing you will get from me is what everyone gets: Equal cynicism.

    Yup. It is a retarded weapon for this application. Aren't we talking about CQB? Pretty sure most Iraqi homes are less than 55yards long. I said that if you were infatuated with something compact, chambered for 5.7mm, that'll do, even though you're 99% likely to encounter an unarmored target which has a reasonable chance of eating your 5.7 and asking for seconds. A Kimber 1911 loaded with Hydra Shock would be a bit more suitable for the size.
    Define "close quarters". up to 200 yards is perfect for just about everything except medium-range combat which takes place up to 500 yards. At least how I define it. In VERY close quarters, under 50 yards, the P90 would still perform better than its handgun counterpart. As for the Kimber 1911...holy crap I want to own one for personal defense.

    In any case, I would prefer an effective assault rifle as I previously asserted. Kind of my main thesis, right?
    Speaking of an effective assault rifle, can you provide me a decent source to the latest SA80 series rifle? I have not located one.

    And you never told me what you do for a living.
    Because occupation, much like title, has no bearing on a conversation. Only the results do.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Were I hooked up to a monitoring device my heart would not be beating a single beat faster than it normally does (A healthy 60BPM).
    Careful, that's bordering on bradycardia.

    Define "close quarters". up to 200 yards is perfect for just about everything except medium-range combat which takes place up to 500 yards. At least how I define it.
    There is no defined limit but I would call CQB as less than 25 meters or more appropriately, indoors. 500 yards is well beyond medium range and towards the maximum effective range of most assault rifles.

    Speaking of an effective assault rifle, can you provide me a decent source to the latest SA80 series rifle? I have not located one.
    Decent internet sources detailing the L85A2 are tough to find. I've noticed this with Brit weapons in general. They don't much like to publish statistics and range data on their toys.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA, VA
    Posts
    102
    im not entirely sure i've followed the conversation very well, but from the looks of things you seem to be arguing weather a small caliber SMG would be better than a large caliber pistol. .... why not get both? like my personal favorite, UMP 45. .45 cal. SMG with a healthy ROF.

    as for assalt rifles i do like that british L85A2, but as far as what i've used on video games(Tom clancy's: rainbow 6 vagas 1&2) i like the M.T.A.R.-21
    it's very light weight and has a good range on it. and from what i hear the Israel Defense Force are some pretty bad ass guys.
    Taken Down, With Hearts Alive
    Our Hearts Alive
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    My point is that SMG's are no longer appropriate because higher caliber weapons are now available in submachinegun sized packages. Stopping power is a big deal, talk to anyone who has seen the effects of a 5.56x45 in combat. It doesn't get the job done but certainly has better ballistics than a 5.7 or .45.

    I recommend the L85A2 to conform with the STANAG 5.56 round but if it were my choice I would bump up the STANAG round to something like 6.8SPC pending testing. Even 5.45x39 would be preferable.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA, VA
    Posts
    102
    well i suppose a bullet to the head is a bullet to the head. but were i to choose a CQB round i'd have to go with the .45. i say that without any combat experience, but if my target isnt any farther away than 20 yards, i might as well punch a fist sized hole in him.

    i can see mabey a little smaller caliber with distance longer than that. but really i think that's the entire point of the bullpuped assalt rifle. That it's a multi purpose weapons, able to be used in close quarters, and around corners, as well as having the range of standared assalt rifles.


    Quote:
    Define "close quarters". up to 200 yards is perfect for just about everything except medium-range combat which takes place up to 500 yards. At least how I define it.

    There is no defined limit but I would call CQB as less than 25 meters or more appropriately, indoors. 500 yards is well beyond medium range and towards the maximum effective range of most assault rifles.
    .... damn!!! the gravity of your statment has finally hit me. really man you've got to be kiddint, medium range targets starting at 500 yards?! thats rediculas. some of my own hunting rifles will just bearly shoot 200 with out having to arc the bullet.

    i looked up the 6.8 SPC, and i have to say i like it. it's a good comprimise between 5.56 and 7.62 while still leaning on the power side of the two.
    Taken Down, With Hearts Alive
    Our Hearts Alive
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I think Darius is the only one who's even mentioned reliability. Is the M-16 A4 substantially better than its predecessors that way? From what I've been told of M-16's, you can't even go to burst fire without a serious risk of jamming. Is that just the older models?


    There are all kinds of legends about AK-47's that continue working just fine after being put through all kinds of abuse. I somehow think concern over whether a gun will fire in the first place would tend to outweigh other concerns in most situations, but I guess having the longer range, and low weight might make it worth taking a small chance of a jam?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    I think Darius is the only one who's even mentioned reliability. Is the M-16 A4 substantially better than its predecessors that way? From what I've been told of M-16's, you can't even go to burst fire without a serious risk of jamming. Is that just the older models?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure)
    L85A2: 31,500
    UK (Temperate) - 31,500
    Brunei (Hot/Wet) - 31,500
    Kuwait (Hot/Dry) - 7,875
    Alaska (Cold/Dry) - 31,500

    MTBF AN-94: over 10,000

    It's tough to find MTBF ratings. Manufacturers don't like releasing them. A little math and you can find the MTBF for these weapons:

    Number of stoppages in 60,000 rounds
    XM8: 127 stoppages.
    MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
    416: 233 stoppages.
    M4: 882 stoppages.
    AR's do have serious reliability issues, one reason I prefer the L85A2 for a STANAG weapon. It's a big deal but finding a weapon with a good mix capabilities, rather than a specialized tool with only one superior attribute is key.

    Never noticed an issue in burst mode. M16A4 is not significantly more reliable.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA, VA
    Posts
    102
    yeah i remember hearing from my dad that the old M-16 that were used in 'nam and stuff, were really unreliable and jamed easy and rusted like a metal barrel

    they have gotten excedingly more reliable with newer versions though
    Taken Down, With Hearts Alive
    Our Hearts Alive
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •