Us army adopts .50 cal replacement

[Jinef 2]

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

Remember guys, the SLR is heavy and bulky, not good for CQB. The new SA80 is the perfect solution for the new rifle blah blah.

I really don't care.

I find the new US policy of making weapons smarter than the troops using them quite amusing. How long does it take to clean? Is it waterproof? Can it be dropped in a swamp and still fire? Is it vibration and smash proof, as you know what the US army air corp is like.

I'm pretty sure this was chosen on it's shiny factor and not it's practicality factor.

[denoir 0]

How much does one M2 cost???

$6,850 [ 5700 € ]

[bn880 5]

And soon anyone will be able to purchase it in the States. I hear they have some machine gun bill ending later on this year. If that happens I will have to bring lots of body armor to visit the states, in the extreme necessity.

[walker 0]

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

Hi Jinef

Yeh Yeh! Quoting a saying is not an argument find out what the power of the M2 is and argue on that not Sun newspaper headlines.

Your other statements and questions are reasonable.

I have always thought one of the key statistics of any peice of machinery especialy guns is the number of parts.

Less parts is better. The only seperate parts you should need are those that wear.

So in a gun the barrel, fire mech bolt asembly and round feed mech. On the carriage the baring, elevation and traverse mechs. Anything else needs to be thought about and refined out of existance or made non detachable.

The site mech is always a seperate part detachable and interchangeable.

I am a great believer in encapsulating modern weapons in PU to strengthen them and protect them from dirt and water. So a weapon that has smooth scifi looks tends to be more reliable not less.

Kind Regards Walker

[Jinef 2]

The reason it's become a cliche is the fact that most often it's truth.

The way America will become more effective at minimising it's casualties in conflicts is not buying new equipment, it's not getting into the engagements in the first place.

I have a better idea, instead of replacing something that works why not actually put soldiers through re-education schemes and make a professional military that does not rely on national guard units.

Possible Re - Education Schemes:

for USAF aircrew -

Flag Recognition - UK / Iraqi

Geography - No America isn't the big place, that is Asia.

Radio comms - Don't Scream "Yahooo I got that raghead" down

the radio, people have to use it for important info.

For US infantry -

Not holding a long thing - Don't shoot

Holding a long thing - Shoot only when ordered by someone with a IQ above 6.

I'm in a worse mood with the US military today than most days, i've been talking to a mate who got back from Iraq.

[stgn 39]

Well they tend to brake more offen than metal G36, have had problems like that and it is clumsy being much too big(not heavy but big) and a soldier said that he would much rater have a C8 than a G36 cause of the G36 big sight and the C8 was much more costimiseable.

and funny enough the XM8 has from what I have seen the same "problems" it is bigger and more clumsy than a M4 and dosent realy offer enything a M4 could not be changed in to.

I don't know about that, the G36 users tend to be euphoric about it. It's very reliable, accurate and easy to maintain. The whole AR family of weapons on the other hand have always been plagued by reliability problems. They have been improved upon over the years but still suffer from a number of problems.

Also comparing the G36 to the M4 isn't quite right when it comes to size. You should compare it to a G36K.

The biggest benefit of the XM8 is as I see it in its weight as well as the new gas system that does not push back propellant gases onto the reciever (resulting in much less necessary cleaning). Also supposedly it is far superior for use in bad operational environemnts. The AR family has always had problems with mud and sand.

Okay but even a M16 is slimmer than a G36. But then again you cant compare the XM8 to the M4 rater a M4 commando. and as it is now the M4 is in it self lighter than a XM8 it just don't have eny elektronics. and whit a HK update it should be somewhat just a reliable. And no the AR is not a jamming machine if you keep it clean and use it correct you should not have eny problems whit it and the M16/M4 is accurate too.

Balschoiw:

ultima ratio:

Quote[/b] ]

STGN wrote:

Quote[/b] ]

Is the G36 clumsy?

STGN

Due to the large and high carry handle with the dual optic it is too big for my taste though it's not heavy at all. Especially if you mount the NSA80 nightvision device it's way to high and becomes a bit top heavy. With the lower rail/carry handle and another optic like an Aimpoint or EOTech it's o.k. I read reports about reliability problems and breaking stocks and carry handles but I myself never had problem, shooting is a pleasure with it. Nevertheless, I prefer the look and feel of the C8 and there are much more options for it available, you can customize it to your needs if you're allowed to do so.

http://www.tactical.dk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34 ;you need to log in first.

M16 toy You call the M16 a toy compared to G36

I have only fired the C7A1(M16A3) and not the G36

Also the mags may be see throu able but they are bigger and consumes more space. How easy are they to split apart cause a weapons mechanic tolld me that splitting a M16 mag lays bethween the old and new G3 mags not that I have much expirence in that but I have tryed?

Have there been eny problms whit the split end(muzzel) on the k version cause I reasontly read that it had been change on the M16 cause it got stuck every where.

Also why did HK not make a retractable butt to the G36 the other might be smart in transport situations but it does not alow the soldier to make it better for him or her in combat?

STGN

[denoir 0]

And no the AR is not a jamming machine if you keep it clean and use it correct you should not have eny problems whit it and the M16/M4 is accurate too.

Balschoiw:

ultima ratio:

Quote[/b] ]

STGN wrote:

Quote[/b] ]

Is the G36 clumsy?

STGN

Due to the large and high carry handle with the dual optic it is too big for my taste though it's not heavy at all. Especially if you mount the NSA80 nightvision device it's way to high and becomes a bit top heavy. With the lower rail/carry handle and another optic like an Aimpoint or EOTech it's o.k. I read reports about reliability problems and breaking stocks and carry handles but I myself never had problem, shooting is a pleasure with it. Nevertheless, I prefer the look and feel of the C8 and there are much more options for it available, you can customize it to your needs if you're allowed to do so.

http://www.tactical.dk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34 ;you need to log in first.

It has serious problems with harsh enviromental conditions. AFIK this was one of the main reasons why they chose the XM8 instead of continuing developing the existing family. This was evident during the Iraq invasion where there were some serious issues with sand jamming the weapon.

Quote[/b] ]M16 toy You call the M16 a toy compared to G36

I have only fired the C7A1(M16A3) and not the G36

I have very limited experience with both - I've fired them on a range a couple of times, but the M16 certainly feels much 'cheaper', much more plastic. Plus the 'swoosh' sound of the spring is really annoying  

Quote[/b] ]Also why did HK not make a retractable butt to the G36 the other might be smart in transport situations but it does not alow the soldier to make it better for him or her in combat?

They have a foldable design instead and this I can tell you from personal experience is much more convenient than retractable. Our old G3's had retractable butts while our Ak5's had foldable. The latter was far more practical and required less maintenance.

Also, I think for weapons with  long barrels a bullpup design a la the G36 is preferable as the weapon is far better balanced and more compact.

[Badgerboy 0]

The reason it's become a cliche is the fact that most often it's truth.

The way America will become more effective at minimising it's casualties in conflicts is not buying new equipment, it's not getting into the engagements in the first place.

I have a better idea, instead of replacing something that works why not actually put soldiers through re-education schemes and make a professional military that does not rely on national guard units.

Possible Re - Education Schemes:

for USAF aircrew -

Flag Recognition - UK / Iraqi

Geography - No America isn't the big place, that is Asia.

Radio comms - Don't Scream "Yahooo I got that raghead" down

the radio, people have to use it for important info.

For US infantry -

Not holding a long thing - Don't shoot

Holding a long thing - Shoot only when ordered by someone with a IQ above 6.

I'm in a worse mood with the US military today than most days, i've been talking to a mate who got back from Iraq.

Read the report on the GR4/Patriot incident yet?

'Human Error'...... again!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]M16 toy You call the M16 a toy compared to G36

Yes shot all of them and the M16 really feels like a toy. At least for me.

Quote[/b] ]Also the mags may be see throu able but they are bigger and consumes more space.

Is this a point ? Magazines always take some space. Therefore you have magazine pockets

They are in fact lighter than the old G3 magazines, that came in 2 versions only, the solid metal ones (heavy, tendency to corrode but more stable than the 2nd type) and the ALU magazines wich were pretty light weighted but not that good when it came to extensive use. I has some jams with the ALU magazines so I went for the heavier but more stable Metal magazines.

The G36 magazines are durable (see through or not) and share the same technical principle as the G3 mags. Both versions can be taken apart in fields if you watch the spring.

I see no negative thing here.

Quote[/b] ]Have there been eny problms whit the split end(muzzel) on the k version cause I reasontly read that it had been change on the M16 cause it got stuck every where.

I don´t have the split version. It´s true that those were a bit tricky especially in woods or when going through hedges but as it is a part for 2 Euro they got changed, at least here with KRK and RRF forces. It´s just cosmetics though. I don´t know what the export version carries but we dont have the split ones anymore.

Quote[/b] ]Also why did HK not make a retractable butt to the G36 the other might be smart in transport situations but it does not alow the soldier to make it better for him or her in combat?

Because the material of the G36 corps is different now.

The G3 K version had the retractable butt but as I´ve experienced on my own it wears out and begins to flatter after a while. That means you have the gun in your shoulder and you could twist it in that position. But if you shoot with a weapon that is twisted from the 90 to eye , 90 to shoulder you don´t hit your target anymore. That´s why they went for the foldable version. Handling remains the same. Shoot on CQB´s with folded status and go for LRT´s with unfolded stock.

It´s practicable and working for both uses.

I don´t feel any difference when using it in both modes.

In fact the G3 K had a rubber plating at the end of the retractable stock that made some nice injuries when weapon was fired from the hip. It rubbed open the inner arm. This doesn´t happen anymore with the foldable G 36 K.

[Jinef 2]

@Badgerboy - I read the report - The patriot battery crew were in full compliance to their proper procedures. The system identified it as a anti radiation missile heading for them, they did several IFF checks but the Tornado's IFF transponder was defective, the pilots would be doing system checks however the error was not picked up by the avionic's diagnosis system.

There was little human error involved - it was just a tragic mistake.

However - The Patriot crew should probably have realised that the Iraqis had no anti radiation missiles and very few aircraft to launch them from. Also the chance of a mig 23 or similar daylight operating aircraft flying at 02:48 past 3 CAP networks, an extensive network of other patriot batteries and firing a high tech anti radiation missile at this one battery would be pretty unlikely. The crew followed procedures that were out of date and were not flexible enough for them to use common sense to realise the absurdity of the situation.

As a result:

Kevin Main and David Williams from IX Squadron were killed.

IFF system diagnosis for Tornadoes is being updated.

On takeoff Tornadoes are making IFF checks with ground radar.

Patriot Battery crews are not doing anything as US commanders feel their safety could be compromised, are we suprised?

Once again the British pay the price and then fix the problem.

[miles teg 1]

I'm sure the G-36 is a fine rifle, but I have few complaints of the "toy" M16.  I used the M16A2 for many years and with a well zeroed weapon I was routinly able to hit out to 300 meters on pop up targets without too many problems.  What wins firefights is training, tactics, and firepower.  The US Army with the M4s/M16's, M203, M249, M240, M21, M24, M2, and Mk19's  undoubtably have some of the best firepower combos.  The Mk19 is especially devestating.  I hope that this new system will not replace the 40mm Mk19 because that system packs a tremendous punch.  

M203's likewise are extremely useful for flushing out an enemy in urban combat zones.  

The M4's also get high ratings for CQB as they are tiny and easy to maneuver around corners as they are not much larger then a HK MP-5.  

I actually liked the "toy" feeling of my old M16A2 as it was nice and light but with a good buttstock that was plenty capable of cracking skulls as well as allowing for good accuracy out to 300 meters.  

But with that said the XM-8 looks like it will be a good replacement.  As for this new 25mm system, likewise it will provide tremendous firepower close to the Mk-19 but with greater accuracy and versatility (and weight).   The MK-19 however is still good for indirect fire and I would think packs a more powerful punch due to the larger round.  

At any rate if its reliable auto-cannons for infantry are a good thing for the infantry that get them... but very very bad for any opponent.... also bad for civilians in a war zone where its used as shrapnel does not discriminate between bad guy and civilian... as many Iraqi civilians have discovered when Mr. 40mm hits their homes accidentally or they are unfortunate enough to be near militants shooting at US troops.

It never ceases to amaze me how young Arabs seem to have a fondness for walking behind or near gunmen cheering them on.  Thats one of the big reasons why so many unarmed Palistinians get killed all the time...gunmen there and in Iraq have mobs of kids and teenagers following them around as they fight.   Crazy....

Oh well...hopefully after enough encounters with Mr. 40mm or 25mm Bushmaster HE rounds and they'll learn not to do that.

Ma Deuce or any .50 caliber HMG isn't much better...as .50 BMG tends to go through the walls of several houses in a row before stopping unless it hits some really thick masonry or steel. At North Ft. Hood there is a crew served weapons range where there is one concrete fighting position that has a very deep hole in left by a .50 BMG round that went off due to a training accident. Anyone who has trained at that range has probably seen it. Its a good lesson in the capabilities of the .50 cal BMG and why its too be respected and used wisely.

But in Iraq, when that's the weapon a soldier is assigned to, they are not thinking about what's behind an Iraqi gunman when they fire it. In my opinion it really is not an appropriate weapon for urban combat.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[hellfish6 7]

I wonder if the M-307 is capable of firing the same 25mm ammo as the M-2 and LAV-25. It's be nice to have a dismounted capability for that kind of firepower, and a lightweight mount for a humvee. Screw the "smart" rounds, a 25mm APFSDS-DU round will ruin anyone's day and there will be no trees to hide behind.

[walker 0]

Hi Helfish

The smart rounds are for air-burst over fox holes and slit trenches.

Yet another reason to hall those logs and sandbags in for top cover.

Either that or dig a side tunnel.

Along with a roll slope and kick slit for grenades and to sh*t in, trenches are getting back to WW1 vintage archetecture.

Kind Regards Walker

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Can I ask a silly question concerning FA rifles in general?

Besides reliability and the comfort of easy cleaning, can you realy profit greatly from a good rifle. I mean is aiming and firing much easier with a G36 than with an AK? Does it realy make a great difference? Can a good rifle compared to a bad one realy safe your life and give you the competitive edge over your enemy. I always wondered. I assume in house to house combat an old AK is just as fine as a G36! Teach me wrong cause I realy dont know much about rifles! Why does the US bother to develop a new rifle. Why not just taking the G36. What is the great advantage of such a costly new rifle (and I dont mean this heavy big machine gun to which THIS thread is dedicated)!

[TopCover 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yet another reason to hall those logs and sandbags in for top cover

Thank you, but i have no space in my 2 room appartment for that kinda stuff

But anyway, I can understand that "Ma Deuce" needs replacement, but what is so wrong with the m4 that it needs replacement too?

[walker 0]

Hi all

With regard to assault rifles the move is toward bull-pup designs. They are inherently better balanced, accurate and easier to use in CQB.

This is because the magazine and firing mech are shifted back. The barrel is still as long or longer than the current full size assaullt rifles so there is no loss in rifle length. Yet the overall length is shorter by the redundent length of current butt/stock length making it more manuverable in CQB.

The shorter length makes control of kick easier and reduces the effect of operator shake. In a standing position the reduction in leverage means a sizable increase in accuracy.

The problems are:

Dealing with cartrdge ejection and bolt action and enabling the rifle to be fired from both sides of the body without operator injury. This is a simple engineering problem.

Stupid decisions to build a totaly new rifle rather than bulpup existing rifles that have been proven.

The main exception to that is the bull-pupped AK made by the South Africans. I can not think of a more sensable solution. Click here to see a picture.

The other major change is toward using more plastic and composite materials. As I have said mounting in a sealed PU body is definately and advantage in terms enviromental protection. Although marrying materials with different expansion rates due to heat changes has to be considered.

Kind Regards Walker

[stgn 39]

Can I ask a silly question concerning FA rifles in general?

Besides reliability and the comfort of easy cleaning, can you realy profit greatly from a good rifle. I mean is aiming and firing much easier with a G36 than with an AK? Does it realy make a great difference? Can a good rifle compared to a bad one realy safe your life and give you the competitive edge over your enemy. I always wondered. I assume in house to house combat an old AK is just as fine as a G36! Teach me wrong cause I realy dont know much about rifles! Why does the US bother to develop a new rifle. Why not just taking the G36. What is the great advantage of such a costly new rifle (and I dont mean this heavy big machine gun to which THIS thread is dedicated)!

Well the G36 does not realy do somthing the M16 cant plus the US problery want Stat of the art that can take on the M16 in every aspect(which the XM8 unest look like it cant) and the US problery want a unike rifle of ther own.

I think I would take the G36 over the Ak47 cause eventho G36 is longer(whit the stock out folded) but offers 1-3-30 trigger, less recoile and a red dot sight(faster aiming).

Well if the Mags are bigger it means you can carey less ammo if you have limited space and it means that I could take 3 M16 mags for every two G36 mags.

STGN

[aj_addons 0]

the g36 can do something the m16 cant it has full auto fire mode where as the m16 lost that ability after the A1

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well the G36 does not realy do somthing the M16 cant plus the US problery want Stat of the art that can take on the M16 in every aspect(which the XM8 unest look like it cant) and the US problery want a unike rifle of ther own.

I think I would take the G36 over the Ak47 cause eventho G36 is longer(whit the stock out folded) but offers 1-3-30 trigger, less recoile and a red dot sight(faster aiming).

Well if the Mags are bigger it means you can carey less ammo if you have limited space and it means that I could take 3 M16 mags for every two G36 mags.

STGN

LOL, you are really stubborn, arn't you? There is a generation difference between the G36 and the M16. There is no question about the superiority of the HK. And that is why the US military has chosen the G36 based XM8 design over continuing the AR family.

G36 has:

[*] Superior reliability

[*] Superior durability

[*] Easier maintenance

[*] Smaller weight

[*] Superior range

[*] Superior optics

[*] More robust frame

[*] Choice of many different mag/drum sizes

[*] Modular design/interchangable assembly groups (you can reconfigure the rifle within seconds)

[*] Gas piston operating mechanism that doesn't shoot propellant gases all over the reciever

[stgn 39]

Quote[/b] ]Well the G36 does not realy do somthing the M16 cant plus the US problery want Stat of the art that can take on the M16 in every aspect(which the XM8 unest look like it cant) and the US problery want a unike rifle of ther own.

I think I would take the G36 over the Ak47 cause eventho G36 is longer(whit the stock out folded) but offers 1-3-30 trigger, less recoile and a red dot sight(faster aiming).

Well if the Mags are bigger it means you can carey less ammo if you have limited space and it means that I could take 3 M16 mags for every two G36 mags.

STGN

LOL, you are really stubborn, arn't you? There is a generation difference between the G36 and the M16. There is no question about the superiority of the HK. And that is why the US military has chosen the G36 based XM8 design over continuing the AR family.

G36 has:

[*] Superior reliability

[*] Superior durability

[*] Easier maintenance

[*] Smaller weight

[*] Superior range

[*] Superior optics

[*] More robust frame

[*] Choice of many different mag/drum sizes

[*] Modular design/interchangable assembly groups (you can reconfigure the rifle within seconds)

[*] Gas piston operating mechanism that doesn't shoot propellant gases all over the reciever

Yes and so what and you are not right about every thing:

01. Yes but whit H&K's improvement the M16 is very reliable.

02. Based on what.

03. Sure the M16 is easy to clean.

04. Yes the M16 is slightly heavyer than a G36 but it is also longer.

05. No the M16 has a longer barrel than the G36.

06. The M16 is not equiped whit an optic from start but the flattop easily adopts a wide range of scopes.

07. As 02. based on what the M16 isent known to fall apart.

08. The M16 has a wider range of mags avalible to it than the G36.

09. The M16 is the most modular rifle in the world today I don't think its is posible to make a rifle where you can change more things than on the M16

10. Yes but that is only a problem if you don't clean the rifle or use a badly burning powder. This is done to stable the barrel, how does G36 do that? I just want to know(meant in an positive not negative way)

M16 has:

[*] Faster reload you just put in the mag and press the bolt lock, you dont have to fold out the cooking handle and press it back first to load the round.

[*] None extrenaly moving parts like the G36's cooking handle.

[*] A Muzzel that directs the muzzel flash upwards which helps to prevent muzzel climb and dust in front of the shooter to get blown up.

[*] A slimmer body.

[*] A much longer service life where data about the rifle has been recorded.

[*] Much more beuteful design

STGN

[Frisbee 0]

There's a whole generation between the G36 and the M16,it's like saying the garand with such and such improvements is a better rifle than the M16.  

The improvements the M16 has undergone are done by whom? Yes H&K, the improvements are done by them.

So a rifle designed, from the ground up by H&K is bound to be better than the alternatives in the M16 family.

Because, if you could do a better job you wouldn't need them to improve your existing designs, now would you?

Doesn't that sound logical?  

[Gollum1 0]

Please STGN, like denoir said no-one is seriously disputing the superiority of the G36, the discussion is more about how much of a better rifle the U.S military would get compared to the cost of buying hundreds of thousands of new rifles.

[miles teg 1]

First off...comparing the M16 ot a G-36 is NOT like comparing an M1 Garand to an M16. The M1 Garand is a semi-auto 7.62x51mm weapon with a wooden stock.

The G-36 and M16 are a hell of a lot more similar. From what I know of the G-36 it seems like a slightly superior weapon to the M16 family of rifles in some respects. However it is true that the M16 can be reloaded incredibly fast. But I might lean towards the G-36 due to it having less problems with jamming. The issue with weapon sights however is a moot issue as the M16 rifles can mount every weapons sight imaginable. The accuracy of the rifle is also excellent.

So to me the main advantage of the G-36 is simply its ability not jam as easily. However I am curious as to how it copes with sand in the rifle... something that is a big problem for many modern assault rifles. This is an area where the AK-47 is king. But this is due to its loose part tolerances which takes its toll on accuracy.

One myth about urban combat is that you don't need accuracy. But combat evidence from Iraq shows that accuracy is just as important in urban combat as it is in fighting in open terrain. The majority of fighting in Iraq is not CQB, but rather skirmishes in alleys and from roof tops and windows. The Iraqi militants tend to just spray their AK's at targets and even when they aim, if a target is farther then 100 meters they will be lucky if they hit anything. Anyone who has fired a typical Chinese or Russian made AK-47 knows this. Also on full auto the Ak-47 has alot of muzzle climb and is more difficul to control then a M16 on 3-round burst fire or an M4 on full auto.

The US forces in contrast generally take aimed shots except when using suppressive fire with the SAW or M240 MG.

Many soldiers have likened combat in Iraq to a shooting gallery.

At any rate, back to the M16 vs G-36, I think both are fine rifles, and I'm sure the G-36 based XM-8 will likely be a fine rifle. But I think it will only provide minimal advantages over the old M16's and M4s in the areas of reliability, and because of its bullpup design. The Bullpup design will allow for longer barrel length then the M4 thus most likely slightly extending its maximum effective range compared to the M4 so that it is more on par with the M16A2 but with a shorter length.

What interests me more is whether or not the XM-8 will adapt the M203 system or whether a seperate 25mm hand held autocannon will be issued to troops.

A handheld semi-auto clip fed autocannon would give an infantry squad enormously devestating firepower. While it wouldn't have good indirect fire capability like the M203 it would give better accuracy for direct fire, offer overhead air burst capability, and offer better range then the M203 as well as lighter ammunition hence the ability to carry more ammo then the M203.

So I hope the US Army decides to buy them as well as the tripod mounted M-307.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[MSpencer 0]

In ways it can be argued that the M14 was a better rifle than the M16A1 for Vietnam.

[Mister Frag 0]

While I haven't had the pleasure of shooting the G36 and therefore don't know if there is a similar trick for it, I've been taught not to even fumble for the bolt release on the M16 after a reload.

All it really needs is a good slap anywhere on the left side of the receiver...