New Weapon for Israel
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=164265
Printed Date: 12 June 2026 at 7:49am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: New Weapon for Israel
Posted By: MT. Vigilante
Subject: New Weapon for Israel
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 12:02pm
|
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html - http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavo r.html I know this is not anything new, but I was thinking that I whould prefer this to the M-8, which is going to be the replcement to the M-16, bullpups are better, more balanced and most of all shorter whithout sacrificing accruracy. -------------  Join the XP Re-Revolution!
|
Replies:
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 12:12pm
|
The XM-8 has been scrapped for close to two years now, just so you know (meaning it's not replacing the M-16).
The Tavor is an interesting weapon, but also old news. There are downsides to bullpups too--longer loading times, greater complexity and higher maintenance requirements. Not to mention that Israel hasn't really been issuing them, as they're waiting for their current weapons to wear out. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 12:23pm
|
I'm not sure if it has as much to do with 'waiting for their current weapons to wear out' as it has been 'waiting to work out all the bugs on the Tavor before issuing'.
It had early developmental problems, just like any other design. And they're smart enough to hold off on issuing on a mass-scale until the rifle is good-to-go. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 1:14pm
|
Having the mag under the arm would make for some awkward reloads...
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 2:13pm
|
I'm sure it's not too difficult. Maybe a little awkward especially when in a poopstorm of incoming... but the Brits, French, Aussies, New Zealanders, Irish, and Austrians have been using bullpups for a while now, and seem to manage.
ChiCom's new rifles are bullpup as well. |
Posted By: MT. Vigilante
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 2:58pm
|
I never heard that the M-8 was scraped. Are they still looking for a replacement to the M-16? Also, I knew the Tavor was old news, thats why I said so. ------------- Join the XP Re-Revolution!
|
Posted By: Squishey
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 3:02pm
|
there replacing the m16 with the SCAR series i believe.
------------- Canadians do it on top. 
|
Posted By: MT. Vigilante
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 3:25pm
|
Ah, I like the SCAR, it seems to be a good weapon, of coarse it isn't a bullpup, so it is a bit long, but it seems good. I want the 7.62 version. ------------- Join the XP Re-Revolution!
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 3:43pm
|
As far as I know, NOTHING has been chosen for a M-16 replacement. XM-8 was killed long ago after many problems came up in testing.
SCAR won a SOCOM competition, but as of yet remains only with SOCOM and not an overall replacement. As far as I know, it hasn't been delivered/issued yet. The HK416 has seen limited action with some SOF operators in the sandbox. Capitol Police recently replaced their G36Ks with HK416s. Along with SCAR, it's another contender for a replacement, with the advantage of being a cost-saver since it only replaces the upper half of the -16 series. Time will tell what replaces Stoner's design. |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 4:13pm
|
did the Israelis just develop something even better that was showcased on FutureWeapons?
I am happy the M8 has been scrapped. I like the idea from what Ive seen of the SCAR becoming an all services weapon. Last I checked, only the Marines are still considering replacing the M16's with it. Which probably wont happen because we just replaced all M16A2's with M16A4's I think. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 4:18pm
|
The SCAR (L) has about a pound and a half of weight on top of an M4 carbine, and seems a bit bulkier and longer... I'm not sure if that's the way to go. A new family based on the 416 design has a lot of promise though. As for the bullpups, I'd have to have some hands on to really form an educated opinion about the ergonomics... The mag placement just strikes me initially as being a tad awkward. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 5:02pm
do you live under a rock? |
MT. Vigilante wrote:Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 7:36pm
The tavor was featured on future weapons. It looks like a great gun, but its not for us lefties. The FN FS2000 looks like a cool little rifle, and its legal for all of us peasents living in the free states(sorry Kalifornia) |
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 7:50pm
|
I am personally a big fan of the M16 series, but they've been in service far too long. I pretty sure they're the longest serving US rifle now, but I could be wrong. Either way, the time has come to have them replaced by a smaller, lighter, more specialized weapon, more in line with the new direction the armed forces are taking.
That said, I would really like an M16A4. Possibly the best M16 variant out there, in my opinion--long barrel, full auto, flattop--and I will (probably) never be able to get one. |
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 7:55pm
Under a rock, Montana, what's the difference? |
Posted By: ANARCHY_SCOUT
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 7:57pm
|
It looks like a knock-off L85.
------------- Gamertag: Kataklysm999 
|
Posted By: Pariel
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 8:01pm
| I think calling anything made by Israeli Military Industries a "knock-off" is ridiculous. Similar design, yes. Cheap copy, no. |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 07 February 2007 at 8:24pm
M16A4's are not full auto. they are burst and semi. I've used them. They are better with the rail system. I dont remember the name. Downside is the removable rear site, thing can fall off, also makes it slightly not pracitcal for range shooting for rifle qualification. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 10:02am
Decided to compromise for myself... RRA UTE2, fixed sight, half-flattop. 
Now if I could only afford a EOTech... 
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 11:19am
Removable BUIS are absolutely key, at least for military applications. A little bit of loctite will make sure they don't drop off the upper on their own terms. Look after your kit, and it looks after you. A half-flattop is fine for civvie purposes, but when you're stuck with issued uppers, you take what you can get. When I head over I'm picking up an EOTech, no question about that. I'm also comparing BUIS options; Troy and ARMS make good fold up rear sights that can cowitness with an EOTech. EDIT TO ADD: Why that piece of crap rail on the front sight? ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Pump Scout
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 11:25am
|
Flashlight mount point, I'd think. ------------- http://www.geocities.com/limitedpump - Limited Pump Paintball |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 11:37am
|
For sure- but why there? I'd keep it as close to the centre of gravity as possible... I mount mine right in front of the foregrip when I use one.
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 11:43am
Because it's cheap and so am I. 
Honestly, it doesn't even get used. And if it did, the M3 light with remote switch I have is so small and weighs so little, that center-of-gravity is a non-issue. One can barely tell the difference as to whether it is installed or not. I have a rail on the lower handguard as well... and have that option. But I personally prefer the higher light mount, given what light I have. |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 11:52am
|
Question: How much freedom do soldiers get in regards to customizing and upgrading their equipment? Can you send away for your own knives/boots/body armor/ gun upgrades whenever, or do you have to go by some sort of standard issue regulations? I've always wondered about that, and you guys talking about configuring your guns spiked my interest again.... -------------  |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 1:08pm
|
Speaking from the outside and therefore without much true insight... it depends on the gear, and who your higher-up is.
A personal knife is probably fine, for the most part. Boots will probably have to meet a certain spec. Body armor has been a hot issue... personal-acquired body armor is frowned upon as a whole. Now gun upgrades... again... depends on what you're talking about. Modular stuff like lights, optics, lasers... probably not much of an issue. But altering issued weapons for the most part is a big no-no (so no swapping upper halves), and using personal firearms is also a no-no (so no bringing along your M1911). Although some may be able to bypass the rules depending on how much their chain of command is willing to turn a blind eye. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 2:04pm
Oh God... Loaded question. Depends what you're doing, where you're going, who you're going with, (unofficially) what rank you are, what the kit in question is, what your regimental sergeant major had for breakfast that morning, and whether he's had a pleasing bowel movement since, whether you're regular force or reserves, how much time in you have, and the whims of everyone at every level of your chain of command. There are no hard and fast set and stone policies that anyone pays any attention to... In my context, the reserves, it varies from unit to unit or even company to company. Right now in my unit we get away with a lot more than our RSM would prefer, but then a lot of us are preparing to go overseas. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 2:08pm
|
As long as I could pack my 1337 ninja gear I would be fine. I would just flip out on those guys, and everybody knows that ninja stars > AK47 Then I would commit seppuku, just to show off. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 2:11pm
Pfft. I have committed Seppuku twice already. I am that hardcore. ------------- 
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 3:14pm
That must be a wicked scar. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 4:27pm
lol, no, not loaded, just curious. But yeah, gotcha. Sorta, but not really, but yeah, but no, but sorta....lol... ------------- |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 4:28pm
That's basically our response any time they try to give us a new policy.  ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 4:35pm
Now I know where to go when the zombies invade. Even they will know not to mess with your place. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 4:42pm
Can I come too? I can watch the other side of the house. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 7:02pm
So long as it's okay with her, I have no objections and would welcome your presence. But, I'd appreciate it if you stopped by here first... I'll need a hand bringing the 20K rds of ammunition I have horded. Unfortunately, I will still need to rely on firearms given I don't have Clark's Skillz. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 08 February 2007 at 8:22pm
 |
Posted By: MT. Vigilante
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 5:15pm
|
Oh no! A pound and a half heaveir than the M-4! My arms will never take the immense weight! Seriously that isn't very heavy, my Ruger M-77 which I hunt with, is alot heavier than that. But I agree that a shorter and more compact weapon whould be better.
Shoot Brian you beat me to it.Oh and shortybp, personnally boght body armor is not just frowned upon, it is agianst regulations. If you are caught with body armor you bought yourself, they will revoke the life insurance the army gives you. ------------- Join the XP Re-Revolution!
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 6:00pm
|
Clark and TKD are pretty hardcore but not as hardcore as to back flip into the past and kill your ancestors so your blood line never even started. Now that's Hardcore. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 6:32pm
|
As far as I know, you can take personal weapons to the sandbox, but you can't bring them back. I was talking with a Sgt. here that just got back, and he was saying that when you are relieving the unit before you they will give you all kinds of cool trash like AK's for drop weapons and sidearms and stuff.
------------- 
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 7:54pm
those are "battlefield pickups". Battlefield pickups are apparently fine to use so long as they're not taken home as "war trophies". I'm not sure the same applies to actual personal firearms that you bring with you. |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 8:37pm
Yeah those Custums jerks took away all my collected ears 
 -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 11 February 2007 at 12:26am
|
The main problem with all these weapons, including the Tvor, the M-8, FN2000, the SCAR-l and the H&K 416 is they are all jst another 5.56mm launching platform.
The 5.56mm is a barely capable combat round in anyone's eyes, and I'm one of the biggest 5.56mm supporters there is. There isn't anything these weapons do that the M16 series doesn't already do. The M16 is a handy weapon, it's accurate, its pretty reliable, and it's functional. IF you get one of the newer ones, the M16A3/4's they have rails for optics and other crap. This is exactly what all the other weapons do. There is no giant leap forwards that will cover the expense of re-equpping and re-training the entire US military. If it was something like the OICW/SABR that turned each soldier into a smart weapons delivery system, then I'd agree. AS it is about the only thing they can do to improve the weapons the US military use is give them a bigger round. Not quite as big as the 7.62x51mm, more something along the lines of the 6.8's that have been bandied around for a while. Increase the projectile weight up to around a 100 grains. Give the weapon some longer ranged firepower. Then, if you can, introduce some sort of camera/hud setup to allow firing from behind cover.Then make the weapon light, yet don't compromise on recoil controll. Bullpups have their advantages and their disadvantages. One is slightly slower reloads, but this isn't really a problem IMHO, they are only marginally slower. There is some problems with the triggers, depending on how the weapon is set up. If it's an old school direct linkage system this can lead to heavy and gritty trigger pulls, which degrades long range accuracy. They are just weapons IMHO. They are nice small packaged, that handle a little better, without the crap like folding or collapsing stocks. But they do take added training to use. Incidently, to the person who said the new ChiCom rifle is a bullpup, they've been replacing the QBZ-95 with a newer, standard lay out weapons. IIRC it's got something to do with the QBZ's polymer frame and how it reacts to extream coldness. KBK |
Posted By: KillerBD
Date Posted: 11 February 2007 at 2:00am
|
I doubt the M-16 (and its variants) in the U.S. military is going to be replaced any time soon. Whats the point anyway? The M-16 works just as well as any new 5.56x45mm shooting weapons system. So their isn't even a real reason to find a replacement. Not to mention the A3/A4 version of the M-16 is now available. ------------- Tippmann A-5: >Tapco CAR stock. >W.A.S. board, E-grip. >Spyder Remote Line. >Smart Parts 20" barrel. >Other custom mods. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 11 February 2007 at 10:10am
|
Nothing in the military gets replaced 'anytime soon', which is why finding a replacement is something they are looking at NOW. Back in WW2, they'd design, develop and put into full production a weapon system in 12-24 months. Nowadays... you have YEARS of product development, funding issues, Congress and the Pentagon fighting over it, etc.
The real reason to find a replacement is that Stoner's design is already half a century old. The M1 Garand was a fine rifle, did it need to be replaced? The M-14 was an exceptional rifle, did it need to be replaced? Now the M-16 is a fine rifle, does it need to be replaced? Answer to all: yes. We're seeing more Urban conflict. A more compact rifle design is a necessity. Try wielding a full size A3/A4 while exiting or shooting from a HMMWV. Try doing a room to room clearance of a building with a full size A3/A4. Reducing the need for meticulous maintenance on the part of the individual soldier would be nice too. It's not light-years of improvement in making the simple change to something more maintenance-friendly and compact... but it's something. I hear you on the 5.56 issue Kayback. A lot of people gripe about the fact that we decided to stick with the 5.56 round. The 6.8SPC was looking to be the favorite... but I understand why it was sidelined. Logitical nightmare to start. Improvements are being made to some of the cartridges issued to troops. The heavier 77gr Mk262 rounds have had much praise for their takedown capabilities. Will the 5.56 round ever be ideal? Nope. There will always be those to complain about it. But there is no ideal combat-rifle round. The benefit of one cartridge simply gets weighed out by the benefits of the other. I wasn't aware that the ChiComs had quit on the QBZs. Thanks for the update.  I'm a little behind.
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 12 February 2007 at 8:17am
|
ShortyBP, I've heard it around in a couple of places, and I'm afraid I can't direct link to a reference, I'm at work and they've recently installed a really buggy internet protocol system.
One site I KNOW makes reference to it is world.gus.ru so follow their links to "assault rifles" and "China". I forget the model number. Something like a Type 2006 or something equally imaginative. I like the sound of the 77 grainer. But alas there are two conflicting problems. One is, as you say to make the weapons smaller and handier to use in CQB. The other is to keep the weapons deadly out to 500m. There isn't any way I can think of to do this reliably. Anything that can launch a hard hitting projectile out to 500m, won't be controlable in up close full auto. I personally think the Russians had the right idea back in the late 70's early 80's, and something the US are finally starting to do now. Designated marksmen. Kit most of your guys in the squad out for some serious CQB'ing, and give the long ranged guys scoped weapons. Something they _could_ do is equip the SAW gunners with sights. I don't know how much an M249 deviates, but the M240 I shot was wonderfully accurate, and you could fire it slow enough to manually tap off one or two rounds. True I was only shooting it at a 200m set diatance range, and I shot less than 200 rounds through it, but it would kill two birds with one stone. And IIRC the Brits have a 4x scope on their HBAR L85's they use as Light Support Weapons, the Canadians ise the ECLAN sights on their M249's, and didn't Carlos Hathcock use a scope mounted M2? Leave the long ranged firepower to the heavy weapons, keep the guys doing house clearing with indoor guns. While I like the sound of a 77 grain 5.56mm, we still use the old fashioned M193 ball rounds, 55 grainers. And we shoot them from shorty assault rifles. Our Denel made R6 rifles are roughly the same size as an M4. However as I'm a police officer, I'm never expected to have to shoot a person at over 150m. **edited** we have snipers on call for that sort of crap. Excluding drug farm busts (which are generally done by the Special Task Force in conjunction with the military) I can't recall anyone using an R6 outside, or at ranges over 20m. At 20m a 5.56mm will penetrate ANY ballistic vest you can expect to meet.You don't need the heavier greenie M855's to punch armour at that range. So until the badguys here start rocking up in NIJ Level IV armour, we're gonna be using the lighter bullets. But if I was going into real combat, I'd want some 77grainers. Bullpups are good at making full length weapons manouverable in CQB, and by all accounts the TVOR is a good one. I'd like to get my hands one one. But as I said 99% of my experience is with shorty assault rifles, and 99% of my training revolves around house clearing. Although having to make 250m shots in quals with a 14" barrel is good fun. KBK |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 12 February 2007 at 1:46pm
|
Just one comment- why this nonsense about keeping pers weapons deadly out to 500m? We've found in the past couple years that 95% of combat occurs within 100 meters. 90% within 50. Anything farther than that, and we light it up with C6 (M240) or 25mm from our LAVs- or we call in air or arty. We no longer face the prospect of the Russians rolling across the Fulda gap; we don't need battle rifles- we need small, handy carbines to allow me to enter a room and put several rounds into any imminent threat with the minimum of fuss and bother. I agree with the designated marksman thing, though. It would be nice to keep a scoped AR-10 in each LAV, with at least a couple guys per section highly proficient in its use. But again, designated marksman territory easily overlaps with GPMG/25mm applications. Regarding scoped MGs- yes, we use a 3.4x Elcan optical sight on our C9 (M249). It's got a very wide lens, so it's somewhat useful- certainly for picking where that burst is going to go. The scope also works great for spotting at a distance. Since we don't bring C9s inside when we clear buildings, there's some merit to them keeping the Elcan sight, although my personal desire would be to see a quick detach that keeps the zero and allows you to revert to ironsights quickly. The one problem is that the sights are mounted on the feed tray, and are thus naturally prone to loss of zero... That's hard to get around on an MG, though. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 12 February 2007 at 4:04pm
|
WARNING: The following post contains the thoughts of an armchair commando with no combat experiance. Bullpups are a decent way to keep a rifle lethal at 500m while keeping them compact enough to be handy. A short barreled bullpup in something a tad larger than 5.56mm (6.8mm, 6x45mm, 6.5 Grendle, 5.8X42mm etc.) should be able to do the job at that range as well as not be over the top (recoil wise) for in close. Things to take into consideration as well are penetration through things like building materials. If you wanted to go to the extreme of equipping everyone with CQB ready weapons and supplimenting the long range stuff with DMR and scoped MG's, you might as well give everyone a P-90. I was talking to a guy the other day who was issued a full-sized M-249 in Iraq and absolutly hated the version of te ELCAN he had mounted on it. While he thought it was great for looking around, he said it was frustrating since the weapon would move so much from fireing and it'd take him a while to find the target again. From a lot of the footage I've seen out of Iraq, coalition forces try to keep their distance from insurgents unless they have to get close. Keep them pinned in a building until you can call up something to turn the building into a pile of rubble. A full sized rifle, even one with an optical sight, makes a lot of sense for this. The enemy has poor marskmanship and relativly crude weapondry, why fight them up close and even the odds up? INSTITUTIONAL BIAS ALERT If QCB is the future of combat, why in the world did the Marines standardize the full sized A3/A4 with an optical sight? While a collapseable stock might have been a good move for entering and exiting vehicles, not to mention adapting to body armor, they chose a full-length barrel. If they thought the M-4 was great they'd have adopted it and cut the qual distance down to 200 or 300 yards and eliminated the 500 yard line. Then again, jarheads are nuts.... |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 12 February 2007 at 4:46pm
|
Equipment decisions are generally made by older guys who occupy staff positions, and don't necessarily have much 'real' experience. Or, if they do, it was usually in the 'last war', or the last philosophical; position that military branch held. Our issued kit, for isntance, is optimized for our alst operations- peacekeeping in Bosnia. Hence a nice light vest that wears comfortably- but only holds four rifle magazines. Now guys are going $600 out of pocket for their own chest rigs and modular systems. Same thing with rifles. Shorter barrels are a product of the new combat, not the fighting of the 1990s. Yes, the marines may have stuck with the full 20" abrrel- but ask the majority of guys serving in an urban environment, and they'll wish for something shorter. Our standard right now is a 20" flattop on top of a carbine-stocked lower receiver. Our standard optic is a 3.4x Elcan. More and more flat top heavy barrel 14 or 16" uppers are getting issued now, and more and more people are sticking with ironsights or reflex sights- particularly EOTechs (which are also increasing in terms of number issued). A competent shot can place very effective point fire at 300m with a 14" or 16" barrel. Claims to the opposite are false. Carbine length barrel suit the needs of the vast majority of infantry soldiers in today's battlespace. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 12 February 2007 at 4:56pm
|
From my personal experience.It's always better to keep them as far as posible. Specially since AK's have horrible acuracy at anything other than Point Blank range. I like my odds at 300 yards hugging the dirt on the prone than 50 feet with a Carbine rifle.
You cant make a war for yesterdays nor Todays wars. The Next war will have it's own problems and needs. What we need is a more adaptable Weapons Platform. I never understood why they just didnt have two sets of Uppers for our M-16's in the Armory Long for when we busting brush and a shorter Urban Barrel accurate to 300 yards is fine. Since no one rifle will be the Wonder Gun, I could deal with a Lego approach that would let me change my weapon system to meet the mission's need. Why I am a big Fan of the HK-416. I think it should had beat the A-4's for replacement. Its just a better design and we keeping the same feel and most of the parts of the current issue M-16's & M-4's -------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 13 February 2007 at 12:44am
|
Evil Elvis, it's probably cheaper and easier thing to do if they just buy two whole weapons. Less keeping track of parts and crap.
Brihard, 500m was just a literal thumbsuck number. It's more or less the limit of the full length M16 and the 5.56mm. I've personally shot expert with the R4, a full length Galil, complete with built in bipod at 500m. The problem is at 500m the 5.56mm pokes itty bitty little holes in it's target. The 7.62's still arrived with authority. One problem with the "it's getting urban" was highlighted in Afganistan. It isn't always indoors, and it isn't always possible to open up with a 25mm, or with air support. The 25mm and the air support option will be getting less and less viable the more and more it DOES move into an urban setting. As I said, I enjoy making the 250m shots with our 14" R6's, but lots of guys can't make it. It is easier to shoot with the longer full length R4's, and thats mainly due to the longer sight radius, and the bipod doesn't hurt :) AK's don't have horrible accuracy, they are just generally shot horribly. The AK can easily engage man sized targets out to 300m. The AK SHOOTER can't always do it, but the weapon can, IMHO. Pretty much the same as any other weapon system :) IMHO the "perfect" M16 platform would be a 16" heavy barrel, multi position collapsable stock, flat top equipped with a Trijicon ACOG, loaded with 77 grainer ballistic tip rounds and to top things off, possibly a gas piston upper. The perfect all round weapon I'dhave to say is a Bullpup of some sort. The Tvor with a 20", the Steyr with a 20", the South African made CR-21, with all the obove options added. I still wonder about the US's lack of ballistic tipped rounds. We use them to increase the chance of killing a 20kg jackal, why not a 90kg enemy that shooting at you. Somehow I don't see a reason to stick to the Hauge treaty any more..... KBK |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 13 February 2007 at 9:06am
Unfortunately, while there are many who would agree with you, especially given the fact that those we are fighting are not bound by the same "rules"... I don't foresee it ever happening. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 13 February 2007 at 9:43am
Yeah... The 5.56 loses the tumbling effect through soft tissue beyond about 200m... It's only unstable at the highest range of its velocity, if I recall correctly- a couple hundred meters out it stabilizes and blows clean through with minimal secondary cavity. I mean, yeah, you can stab someone to death with an icepick, but it's a labourious process. I'm gonna have to disagree on the ACOG though. Yes, magnified optics are nice, and the ACOG is a fantastic piece of kit, but I don't think they should be issued all around for the kind of fighting we're doing. That gets back to the 'designated marksman' thing, I suppose. For general use, reflex sights are far more suitable for urban operations. I've got a bit of a hard-on for EOTechs, I guess. EE- I would disagree... The experience our guys have had in Afghanistan has reinforced the need for shorter, more compact weapons. The statistics I quoted - 95% of combat inside 100m, 90% inside 50m, are hard numbers. I'll gladly take a shorter weapon for the vast majority of situations I'm likely to face. For longer ranges we rely on fire and manoevre to close with and destroy the enemy at closer range- and for that fire and manoevre we have excellent weapons for suppression in our C9 LMG and C6 GPMG. Yes, the 25mm can't always be used either, but there's still 7.62 coax, and either 7.62 or 5.56 pintle mounted as well. Bulpups are much more mechanically complex and more prone to problems. Yes, they're more bang per inch of length, but you have to balance the compromises you make. I'm inclined to think there's a reason why the majority of teams who get to select their own arms go with traditionally designed ARs. I'm not trying to say everyone should have the same leeway as the SAS or JTF2, but the kit is proven and a favourite of those who know and who stake their life on it more than anyone else. I'll confess a bit of pride that the SAS run with Canadian rifles. Yeah, having 20" barrel accuracy is awesome- but a well trained shot on a 16" will outshoot someone who's a decent shooter on a 20". The limitations are still mostly coming from the guy squeezing the trigger. Since the round itself is not particularly effective beyond the accurate range of a carbine anyway, I see no reason to try to increase the ineffective range of the weapon system. Yet another problem is ergonomics. With the body armour the guys are wearing, carbine stocks are a must. Add a 20" barrel to that, and you start getting front heavy. That's exactly what we've got as our issued rifle now in the regular force; a 20" Diemaco/Colt Canada flattop upper on a retracting stock lower. Elcan C79A2 3.4x optical for sights- with a piece of junk plastic BUIS. Then to cap it off they stuck a bloody picatinny raile on the front sight. Why they didn't pick up rail sets at another $200 a pop is beyond me... I just wish the guys who made decisions regarding kit acquisitions were the same ones who had to stake their life on it. Not that our rifles are bad, by any means- but there's a lot of room for improvement. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 13 February 2007 at 4:15pm
|
http://www.trijicon.com/whats_new.cfm#101 - http://www.trijicon.com/whats_new.cfm#101 Check the compact red dot riding piggy back on the ACOG. Seems like a good all-around solution. Then again, the G-36 series has a similar duel optic setup with a 1.5x and 3.5x optic. It's not really new, but does make a lot of sense. The XM-8 project seemed to have a lot going for it, but certainly had its flaws. If that porject had been run correctly and other companies had had a chance to compete, maybe someone could have come up with something better. IMO it could have had a better bolt(it was basically an M-16 bolt, undoubtably with many of the same problems) and they could have made the stock fold to the side for storage as well as collapse. The "zeroed at the factory" sights just seemed wrong in my book, and I dont believe it had a BDC built in. If it had a stronger shell and a regular M1913 rail setup, it might have been a winner, but screw 5.56mm in an 11" barrel. |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 13 February 2007 at 11:34pm
|
Oh snap, I just discovered that among the thousands of journals and magazines I get free student access to online, Jane's Defence Weekly is one of them. Turns out the original rifle in question, the Tavor 21, has been acquired by India for its special forces...
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 14 February 2007 at 8:55am
Awesome! I had access to the hardcopies up until two months ago. Our old CO got a free subscription, never looked at 'em, set them aside... and I would walk over to his building and snatch them up.
Our new CO let the subscription expire, leaving me to cry and wonder why, considering it was FREE. The same went for AFJ, Sea Power, HSToday, DefenseNews... my wife would hate it. Every other week I'd come home with more paper to clutter up the house. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 14 February 2007 at 4:14pm
|
I'll give you that the ACOG might not be the best one out there, and I must say I like the looks of the Agoc/Doctor combo.
I suppose I'd agree with only having a basic zero magnification red dot, and that's all I'd ever need. However if you are going to make sure the weapon only has a red dot or iron sights for dedicated CQB, then do you really need the 77 grainer bullet? As I've said, I've seen the results of close quater shots with the M193, and it isn't pretty. The 77 grain would increase the true lethal range of the 5.56mm, but those longer ranges would need longer ranged sighting systems I suppose. Oh well. Not like we ever gonna change anyone's mind. Oh look, Tippann.com's forum says we should change. Lets change! KBK |