The general firearms thread!

[ShadySands]

 

Woe betide the man who tries to actually carry an SA80 by the 'suitcase handle'. I've never seen it. Not once.

 

Only Pogues have those. Infantrymen have SUSAT sights and giggle at blanket-stackers with suitcase handles.

 

 

Iron sights or bust 

[Nepenthe]

 

 

Woe betide the man who tries to actually carry an SA80 by the 'suitcase handle'. I've never seen it. Not once.

 

Only Pogues have those. Infantrymen have SUSAT sights and giggle at blanket-stackers with suitcase handles.

 

 

Iron sights or bust 

 

 

The old days, when sights were made of iron and men of complex, partially radioactive electronics.

[sorophx]

 

I personally think that Stoner's design is nearly impossible to beat, modern versions of the carbine version of his AR-10 (like the ACC-M) are possibly the most thought out rifles: accuracy, handling, ergonomics, easy maintenance etc.

 

The AR has always been and will always be a completely overrated mediocre weapons system. If the US military didn't adopt it nobody would even waste a thought on it. The Design depends too much on lubrication, use too little and it jams, run it dry and it doesn't work at all, use the wrong one or too much and the gun gums up because of the powder residue mixes with the oil. Heat + oil + powder residue creates a material similar to tar.

you're talking about M4s that are more than 20 years old, right? there's a million gas-piston AR-15s out there. 

 

don't want to argue with you since my knowledge is based on other people's experience. I never had that chance to fire the only M4 I managed to get my hands on. they're very rare in these parts.

 

you're obviously biased anyway, so there's no point in continuing this discussion.

[Woldan]

you're talking about M4s that are more than 20 years old, right? there's a million gas-piston AR-15s out there.

90% of the AR's sold today are still direct impingement. Soldiers in A-Stan carry AR15s which are not 20 years old.

Its hard to convert DI AR's to piston, they weren't designed for it and it creates tons of new problems. (Follower tilt for example) A weapon system that comes with a piston from the factory isn't Stoners original design therefore its not really an AR. HK 416 for example, its not really an AR. Its like saying a Ford pick up truck that has been converted to mid-engine layout and front wheel drive is still a Ford pickup truck.

 

you're obviously biased anyway, so there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Having an opinion =/= being biased. I'd love to have a strictly technical unbiased discussion about the pros and cons of that system. Edited April 9, 2014 by Woldan

[Walsingham]

You could try climbing down from the high horse though, Woldo.

 

~

 

I've decided there's only one way we can continue this thread in a civilised manner, and that's by forming a comedically ill thought out mercenary unit from all of us and going to fight in the DRC.

 

It'll be like the Odd Couple , but with a lot more mutilation and malaria.

[Woldan]

You could try climbing down from the high horse though, Woldo.

Pff, I don't ride horses, I ride white tigers only.

 

Seriously though, I just stated my opinion and gave good reasons why I believe that the AR system is not as good as you ignorant maggots people say, there is no high horse I can climb down from.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Woldan

[sorophx]

you know there was a huge mess with the US Army not wanting to move from M4 to a new carbine. they were forced to hold a contest for a new weapon system by the Congress, but they never had intentions of actually abandoning the M4, because even after M4 had come dead last in all trials, the Army just deemed it unnecessary to drop such a "reliable system troops are so familiar with in favor of a weapon that is only 70% more efficient" or something along those lines. 

 

so yeah, troops in A-stan still use slightly modified M4 carbines that aren't the best (were never intended as such). and of course there are many other similar weapons a lot better that use the same form factor (HK416)

 

but that's not even the point. I was talking about the weapon in its entirety: how easy it is to make it ambidextrous, how easy it is to maintain in a good condition, how reliable some of them are (barrels that reportedly will serve through 10000 rounds fired, very few jams during torture tests etc.) - some people swear by AKs, I personally think their design is too outdated, and Stoner's design really holds up as years go by

[Woldan]

how easy it is to maintain in a good condition

Read my previous post, the AR is extremely sensitive to dirt and requires constant lubrication with the right lubricant and amount. The AR is NOT easy to maintain. Even under perfect shooting range conditions most ARs frequently jam.

 

 

 

 

barrels that reportedly will serve through 10000 rounds fired

Barrel life has nothing to do with the gun, barrel life depends on the steel used and the ammo fired (hardness of the bullet jacket, pressure and design of the powder. I could reload you really bad ammo that would effectively cut your barrel life in half). If both are of good quality you're going to get tons of barrel life. A guys has tested is FN-FAL how long he needs to fire it till it breaks with cleaning every 5000 rounds or so, I think he currently has 100.000 rounds through the tube and it still works. The barrel is worn but it still hits the target at 100. 

 

I admitted that ergonomics, overall design and accuracy are the strong points of the AR design, the action itself though is a mess and I'm not sure if I could say that such a flawed system is holding up pretty well. From a technically point most of its competitors are better with sturdier, more reliable systems. I wouldn't call the AK outdated though, ergonomics of safety, butt stock, mags and bolt release require a major update but internally its fine as it is. Funny, its problems are the opposite of the ARs.

 

The Russians came up with a new AK-inspired design, its pretty much an updated AK and the engineers seem to have dealt with all the original AK's problems I mentioned. If it has the reliability and sturdiness of the AK with the ergonomics of the AR we have a winner here. 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2014 by Woldan

[sorophx]

I watched a report that stated the Russian Army wouldn't pick up AK12 because it needs a lot of reworking (Izhmach is already on it reportedly), and would go with AEK instead.

 

anyway, you're the first person I've seen who thought commercial versions of AR15 are not easy to maintain. it takes 5 seconds to disassemble 

[Woldan]

anyway, you're the first person I've seen who thought commercial versions of AR15 are not easy to maintain. it takes 5 seconds to disassemble

Oh, thats what you mean. For me ''easy to maintain'' means removing the dirt and applying oil to the gun, a kind of carefree way of maintaining the gun, not easy to maintain means having to add a certain amount of specialized lubricant, carefully removing all the dirt from the gas that has been blown into chamber.....and all that.  I wasn't talking about how easy it is to field-strip the gun for maintenance. Pretty much all military rifles are ultra easy to field-strip and maintain, the AK, AR, M14 and FN-FAL can be field-stripped for cleaning in a couple of seconds. 

And the AR better is easy to field-strip, it needs cleaning and lubrication so frequently.

 

I watched a report that stated the Russian Army wouldn't pick up AK12 because it needs a lot of reworking (Izhmach is already on it reportedly), and would go with AEK instead.

Bummer, it looks so promising. I hope they can work out whatever troubles the gun. They're really going with the AEK instead which is already a pretty old design? Thats surprising.

 

By the way, I still don't get why the western militaries haven't switched to smoothbore rifles shooting plastic-encased flechette. There is so many reasons to go with that new weapon system, yet we're still buying conventional guns.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2014 by Woldan

[Monte Carlo]

Woldan, the US armed services have been arguing about which camouflage pattern to adopt for ten years. What hope have they got when it comes to actual hardware.

 

Weapons systems aren't purchased in isolation. You're buying training, maintenance, peripherals, doctrine and interoperability too. It's an enormous undertaking. As for flechette, yeah I think it's the future but not this turn of the wheel. My man in khaki reckons larger calibre for the next ten-fifteen years and maybe caseless ammo systems after that.

 

Armies always fight the last war. Hurdy hurr. We're buying stuff to fight lightly armed insurgents at the moment, not the Russians. Ironic really.

[Tsuga C]

Interesting. I'm used to thinking of silver as soft.

 

So I guess you've got two options:

- a lead jacket around a silver core. A hollow point silver core would split open on impact and kill your werewolves etc quite tastily

- silver shrapnel maybe?

 

I've clearly not given enough thought to how an imaginary creature should be killed using imaginary bullets.

I may have posted this before, but it's still solid information on casting silver bullets.

[Walsingham]

Woldan, the US armed services have been arguing about which camouflage pattern to adopt for ten years. What hope have they got when it comes to actual hardware.

 

Weapons systems aren't purchased in isolation. You're buying training, maintenance, peripherals, doctrine and interoperability too. It's an enormous undertaking. As for flechette, yeah I think it's the future but not this turn of the wheel. My man in khaki reckons larger calibre for the next ten-fifteen years and maybe caseless ammo systems after that.

 

Armies always fight the last war. Hurdy hurr. We're buying stuff to fight lightly armed insurgents at the moment, not the Russians. Ironic really.

 

I'd wonder about two things:

 

1. Storage of plastic cased rounds, and their robustness in the field

2. Legality under the Geneva convention

 

And I'd tell you to get stuffed on the unrifled barrels. No way is any existing army going to do away with rifled barrels just to adopt a marginally superior flechette round. What the hell would we do with all the rifled guns we already have?

 

But yes, as Monte says, we're all geared up for biffing random yahoos. Not going toe to toe with a regular army.

[Woldan]

1. Storage of plastic cased rounds, and their robustness in the field

Modern plastics can be much more robust than brass cases, they can be made even more robust than steel! And you don't have to worry about oxidation of the cases, you can store them under less than ideal conditions (high humidity) and it does not eat away the case material.

The only thing that would worry me is plastic cases melting away and cooking off in hot chambers, not only would the case rupture it would also send escaping gas straight into the action possibly injuring the shooter. The cases are made of high temp plastics though, the same material that used in modern endurance racing cars in and all around engines and exhaust pipes. I've heard they can withstand 500 Celsius.

 

2. Legality under the Geneva convention

That boat has sailed since the US started to use anti material rifles with incendiary and explosive rounds against attackers and uses hollow point SMK's in their sniper rifles. Also if the enemy isn't part of the Geneva convention it becomes a moot point...

 

And I'd tell you to get stuffed on the unrifled barrels. No way is any existing army going to do away with rifled barrels just to adopt a marginally superior flechette round. What the hell would we do with all the rifled guns we already have?

Hundreds of M4's get their shot out barrels replaced each day. Use them up and then phase in the new rifles. Smoothbore barrels are a LOT easier to produce and have far more barrel life so its a win-win situation.

Also military vehicles phase out and get scrapped every day, I wouldn't worry about a bunch of rifle barrels.

 

But yes, as Monte says, we're all geared up for biffing random yahoos. Not going toe to toe with a regular army.

If China ever plans to expand its territory we're all in deep sheet. Better have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Thats especially true with all military inventions.

[Aram]

As a guy who obsesses over the tiniest, littlest imaginable details regarding the firearms he collects, my opinion on the various combat rifle systems fielded throughout the world is this: they're all pretty much the same and anyone who actually believes which one a military happens to use makes a difference in whether they're going to win a war or something is a nonce.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Aram

[Walsingham]

Woldo, I've heard a lot of nonsense in my lifetime about new spanky materials. I'll believe in the plastic bits of the rounds when I actually see them in use.

 

You also rather missed the point about the rifle barrels. You don't have multiple different barrel types rolling around. What about sharing ammunition in the field? Within units? Between allies?

 

You know your piston thingies and so on. But Monte and I know the bit above that - the super-system. You'd be replacing everything from training to maintenance and regulations. Unless the flechettes are stupendously better at killing the enemy - and I fail to see how the enemy could be more dead - then it's not going to be worth it.

[Monte Carlo]

As a guy who obsesses over the tiniest, littlest imaginable details regarding the firearms he collects, my opinion on the various combat rifle systems fielded throughout the world is this: they're all pretty much the same and anyone who actually believes which one a military happens to use makes a difference in whether they're going to win a war or something is a nonce.

 

True. And yet...

 

If someone develops a personal weapon system that's a force multiplier then your analysis is wrong.

 

Example - the machinegun. Everyone bought a maxim gun then all of a sudden people were carrying smaller versions. By the end of WW1 soldiers could carry personal weapons that allowed them to put down lots of rounds. The reliability of weapon 'a' versus weapon 'b' all of a sudden became extremely important. Conversely, the well-trained Tommy with a .303 Lee Enfield could put down more accurate fire en masse than a poorly trained rabble with faster-firing weapons.

 

There are so many variables, the quality of a weapon being one of them.

 

Take, for example, next-gen networked personal weapons firing caseless flechette ammunition (will happen in my lifetime). The weapon system is more accurate and allows for better tactical awareness / coordination (it's networked via soldier-borne comms and HUD) and lethality is increased (faster rof / penetration). Add in another factor, say weapon reliability and training then you've got a war-winning combination. Imagine a company of networked soldiers with super-duper flechette rifles can take on a battalion of olde worlde 21st century infantry? Then your argument heads south.

 

It's the argument that the aggregation of small advantages = big advantage. Well trained soldiers with mediocre weapons will trump mediocre soldiers with state-of-the-art weapons most of the time. So, when all things are looking equal, just like sportsmen, soldiers jockey for every possible advantage. Be it fast-release mechanisms for fluid reloading, optics, slings, grips... you get the idea.

 

There is also psychology at play. As the old saying goes 'remember your personal weapon was made by the lowest bidder.' When you know you're kit is better than the other guy's then that instils morale. Morale is a non-quantifiable but crucial factor in war. Did the US army in WW2, soldier-for-soldier, perform better than the Wehrmacht?

 

Nope.

 

But the US soldier, with rubber-soled boots, modern uniforms made of comfortable fabrics, utterly modern self-loading rifles (M1 Garand - best rifle of the war) and radios that worked... that gives a man confidence.

 

These are of course tactical considerations that don't take into account tanks, guns, aircraft, nukes and geopolitics. But wars often turn on a fulcrum (Arnhem, Omaha Beach, The Hurtingen Forest, Hue, Fallujah) and those fulcrums pivot on men with guns fighting. That is why men in the profession of violence obsess over their tools.

[Walsingham]

Further to Monte's point about wars turning on key fights, those fights often turn on a handful - dozens - of active men.

 

If you look at most accounts of how many men 'take' that strategically important point you'll often find it's a tiny number. Most - and it's hard to predict exactly who - will find pressing reasons for doing other things like radioing HQ, carrying wounded, cataloging rare beetles and so forth.

 

Not sure where I was going with that.

[Woldan]

I agree with everything MC wrote, in fact I was about to write a very similar post. Except one little thing_  
 

....utterly modern self-loading rifles (M1 Garand - best rifle of the war)

The STG44 and the FG42 were better.  

Edited April 10, 2014 by Woldan

[Monte Carlo]

Not as mass-produced, standard issue battle rifles.

 

Technically impressive, but heavy and over-designed.

 

M1 wins on efficacy, in my opinion of course.

[Woldan]

IMO efficiency means having an optical sight and 20 shots without having to reload, with a muzzle brake and very little recoil. The weight is also not a drawback because the weapon could be used as SAW with the integral bipod and full-auto mode. Thats a lot of pros there. 

 

Then again the STG44 beats em all in everything but range. 

 

 

Also don't forget the awesomeness in shape of the SVT-40: 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2014 by Woldan

[Aram]

True. And yet...

 

If someone develops a personal weapon system that's a force multiplier then your analysis is wrong.

Except this conversation is specifically about the difference between an AR-15 and a Steyr Aug or whatever.

[sorophx]

not the differences, the clear superiority of the AR-15 platform

[Walsingham]

Acknowledging that I'm a total noob at guns, I reckon the AR-15 is just the Levis jeans of guns. It's good, but its success is not down to what it's made of, or how its made.

[Aram]

The prevalence of the AR-15 I think probably has more to do with it esentially functioning as a glorified erector set for adults. There are a hundred different manufacturers all making a dozen different variations of every individual part of an AR-15 platform, and all those parts will fit easily together without so much as minor fitting. You can make it into a short barreled silenced 9mm SMG or a heavy match barreled .308 that'll shoot half MOA groups at 800 yards and all the parts to make it do either will easily interchange between both. But it also comes down more to little things: if you don't like something about the trigger or the weight or the ergonomics of some particular handle or lever on an AR-15, you drop 20 dollars on the same part that feels the way you want it to, and completely change the feel of the whole system. Compare this to, say, H&K, which is so utterly determined to treat their customers like ****, charge $200 for every simple little part, and make damned sure that the owner only owns the gun that they want for him, rather than the one he wants.

 

This explains more it's prevailence among civilian shooters than miltiaries. It doesn't really apply to the plain-jane issue rifle you might issue your military. It does, however, explain why extremely well funded small groups like the SEALS or SAS will still prefer an AR-15 platform over some newer design. They get to choose not just the rifle but the exact way they want to configure theirs individually, so they will choose the one that gives them the most options for individualization.

 

The idea that they are prone to jamming is completely exagerated and more or less a remnant of the first year and a half of Vietnam, and even that myth has mostly died off.

 

I've only handled a Steyr Aug once. I did rather like it, but I've never really liked the balance of any bullpup gun, and I have to say that I've fired toy squirt guns with better triggers.

 

The thin stamped construction of the StG44 meant that you could render an StG44 completely inoperable by standing it up and letting it fall over on its side, at least until somebody could machine the dent back out of it.

 

I love my M1, but that design isn't great either, honestly. Every military in the world almost had already fielded a better semiautomatic design, because most of theirs had a detachable magazine. The en bloc clip nonsense was obsolete long before the first M1 was ever built. Hell, even the Brits had thought to put a detachable magazine into their Enfield, which was a piece of anachronism that belonged in the Victorian age. It makes no sense that it took 20 more years for someone to cut a hole in the bottom and create the M14, which was then itself only more obsolete by the time it came around.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Aram