Competition for M16/M4 replacement opens

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

From looking at pictures of SA80 internals it seems that the rifle has a FREE FLOAT BARREL which means that it is gonna be alot more accurate than example the M16A2 which does not have a free float barrel, standard. Now a guy who knows somthing about this said that comparing a FFP to a non FFP is like comparing appels to bananas(or somthing can't remmber the fruits). This is also why a XM8BC out shoots a M4A1 carbine with about 1.5 MOA, though it should be noted that because the M4 has a metal reciver it, in a FFP comfiguration, would be more accurate than an XM8. And actualy because of the light direct gas system of the M16, I think that it actualy is more accurate than an SA80(the gas system adds wight on the barrel making it more inaccurate) in a FFP configuration. I just wanted to mention cause as another man said most men in the army is more inaccurate than an M16 so it realy only matters for snipers and sharp shooters.

STGN

1) It doesn't have a free floating barrel

2) Maybe the US army are all terrible shots, I don't know; but I don't think so. Anyone can be taught to shoot accurately - it can take longer for some, and some are naturally good at it - but its just nonsense to say that accurate rifles are not important.

3) It is a fact that the M16 is less accurate than the SA80, regardless of what you think about weight on the barrel.

[stgn 39]

From looking at pictures of SA80 internals it seems that the rifle has a FREE FLOAT BARREL which means that it is gonna be alot more accurate than example the M16A2 which does not have a free float barrel, standard. Now a guy who knows somthing about this said that comparing a FFP to a non FFP is like comparing appels to bananas(or somthing can't remmber the fruits). This is also why a XM8BC out shoots a M4A1 carbine with about 1.5 MOA, though it should be noted that because the M4 has a metal reciver it, in a FFP comfiguration, would be more accurate than an XM8. And actualy because of the light direct gas system of the M16, I think that it actualy is more accurate than an SA80(the gas system adds wight on the barrel making it more inaccurate) in a FFP configuration. I just wanted to mention cause as another man said most men in the army is more inaccurate than an M16 so it realy only matters for snipers and sharp shooters.

STGN

1) It doesn't have a free floating barrel

2) Maybe the US army are all terrible shots, I don't know; but I don't think so.  Anyone can be taught to shoot accurately - it can take longer for some, and some are naturally good at it - but its just nonsense to say that accurate rifles are not important.

3) It is a fact that the M16 is less accurate than the SA80, regardless of what you think about weight on the barrel.

1. Your 100% sure it aint a free float barrel? Cause I have been studing the pics of a L85A1 and the barrel does not appear to touch enythin from where its atached to the end of the barrel which means is a free float barrel, if not can you please show me a picture of where it does touch somthing other than the attaching point and ofcause the gas system.

2. okay it problery sounded rong my point was that the M16A2 is perfectly capable of hitting a man in the chest at 300m witch means it is sufficent(offcause could be better) as a battle weapon.

3. My thort was would the SA80 be more accurate than lets say an Mk12 Mod 0(wich offcause should have been fittet with a 1in7 twist barrel insted of the 1in9 twist, they should use the same scope so the amount of things they had in difference was basicaly the weapons system).

STGN

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

1. Your 100% sure it aint a free float barrel? Cause I have been studing the pics of a L85A1 and the barrel does not appear to touch enythin from where its atached to the end of the barrel which means is a free float barrel, if not can you please show me a picture of where it does touch somthing other than the attaching point and ofcause the gas system.

2. okay it problery sounded rong my point was that the M16A2 is perfectly capable of hitting a man in the chest at 300m witch means it is sufficent(offcause could be better) as a battle weapon.

3. My thort was would the SA80 be more accurate than lets say an Mk12 Mod 0(wich offcause should have been fittet with a 1in7 twist barrel insted of the 1in9 twist, they should use the same scope so the amount of things they had in difference was basicaly the weapons system).

STGN

1) Actually, I might be wrong on that; depending on the definition of free floating. The stock does lock in around the gas parts, but its not bonded or anything.

2) Fine, but the SA80 is capable of hitting a man in the chest at 500m (or even 600m for the LSW)

3)Someone will have to do the test (properly) and see. Given that the british shooting team usually beats the American one, though, my money is on the SA80.

[miles teg 1]

1) It doesn't have a free floating barrel

2) Maybe the US army are all terrible shots, I don't know; but I don't think so.  Anyone can be taught to shoot accurately - it can take longer for some, and some are naturally good at it - but its just nonsense to say that accurate rifles are not important.

3) It is a fact that the M16 is less accurate than the SA80, regardless of what you think about weight on the barrel.

Have you ever served in the military Baron?  It is NOT easy to train people to shoot accurately.  In Basic Training I scored expert with the M16A2 (iron sights).  However there were some in my platoon who were only barely able to qualify even after intensive coaching and training on marksmanship skills.  

Maybe with months of steady practice that person could learn to shoot accurately.  However in the real world, armies do not have the $$ to send their troops out to the range constantly for marksmanship training.  That gets very expensive.  With support units, they get even less marksmanship training... however as the war in Iraq has shown, even support units can and will experience heavy combat and must be proficient with their weapons. That is why emphasis is placed on just being able to qualify and not on being "accurate" shots. Basic Army rifle qualificiation is not sniper school. Only those in infantry units with exceedingly good natural marksmanship skills are selected for sniper schools where they recieve advanced marksmanship training.

Now optical sights like the ACOG's do improve marksmanship scores, but still it is one thing getting a rifleman to qualify, but quite another to get them to be "accurate" shots especially at 300 meters.

As for whether the SA80 is more accurate, perhaps it is.  However overall the M16A2 is fairly accurate and does the job well out to 500 meters which is what USMC infantrymen train to shoot out to.   US Army trains to shoot out to 300 meters.

Also the accuracy of the M16 can be improved significantly with a modified trigger assembly.  A heavy target barrel also improves things as well.   A friend of mine has a customized AR-15 with a target barrel, adjustable trigger, and some type of high power scope.   The accuracy on that rifle is extremely nice.

As far as shooting competitions go, that does not prove the superiority of one rifle over another.  What proves that is having the same group of soldiers test several different rifles from both a bunch of unmodified SA-80's (to rule out lemons) and M16A2's with ACOG's.   The tests would have to be done under controlled circumstances with same ammo, using new rifles that hadn't been used.  

However with that said, it wouldn't surprise me if the SA80 was more accurate.  It has a pretty good reputation as being a highly accurate rifle.  But for sure this not an area where the M16A2 is a slacker at.  It also is deadly accurate.  

The best illustration I saw of this was at Ft. Leanordwood on a range where I saw this hillbily soldier from Kentucky place a clip of 11 rounds into the head of a target at 200 meters.  This was just using iron sights.  With optics that guy could have probably had tighter shot groupings.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Have you ever served in the military Baron?

Yes.

Quote[/b] ]It is NOT easy to train people to shoot accurately.

I didnt say it was easy, I said 'anyone can be taught to shoot accurately.'

Quote[/b] ]

In Basic Training I scored expert with the M16A2 (iron sights). However there were some in my platoon who were only barely able to qualify even after intensive coaching and training on marksmanship skills.

Well, the quality of the teacher does have a significant effect. I did not say what you seem to think I did. Some people are naturally good shots; some arent, some learn quickly, some dont. However, anyone can be taught to shoot accurately, although not exceptionally.

Quote[/b] ]

Maybe with months of steady practice that person could learn to shoot accurately. However in the real world, armies do not have the $$ to send their troops out to the range constantly for marksmanship training. That gets very expensive. With support units, they get even less marksmanship training...

All british serving personel get trained and tested every year on rifle handling skills. Everyone in uniform is a rifleman first and a specialist second. I know most branches of the US military do things differently, but thats irrelevant.

Quote[/b] ]

however as the war in Iraq has shown, even support units can and will experience heavy combat and must be proficient with their weapons. That is why emphasis is placed on just being able to qualify and not on being "accurate" shots.

It amazes me that a lot of US military figures seem to think you can be proficient with a weapon but unable to hit what you are aiming at. Brassing up the area looks good in films, but does little in real life. Accurate fire is needed in engaging AND in suppresing the enemy - rounds hitting nowhere near the enemy position don't suppress.

Quote[/b] ]

Basic Army rifle qualificiation is not sniper school. Only those in infantry units with exceedingly good natural marksmanship skills are selected for sniper schools where they recieve advanced marksmanship training.

Please stop telling me how to suck eggs. I've competed at national and international shoots. I know how to shoot. And again, this may apply to the US army, but not to other professional armies.

Quote[/b] ]

Now optical sights like the ACOG's do improve marksmanship scores, but still it is one thing getting a rifleman to qualify, but quite another to get them to be "accurate" shots especially at 300 meters.

How can you pass the test without being accurate? Is the test simply firing the weapon randomly down the range??

Quote[/b] ]

As for whether the SA80 is more accurate, perhaps it is. However overall the M16A2 is fairly accurate and does the job well out to 500 meters which is what USMC infantrymen train to shoot out to.

as individuals? Or as a fire team? I was talking about individual shooting. Fire teams can engage well past that distance.

Quote[/b] ] US Army trains to shoot out to 300 meters.

Also the accuracy of the M16 can be improved significantly with a modified trigger assembly. A heavy target barrel also improves things as well. A friend of mine has a customized AR-15 with a target barrel, adjustable trigger, and some type of high power scope. The accuracy on that rifle is extremely nice.

That must be nice for him. Not really relevant to issued rifles though, is it?

Quote[/b] ]

As far as shooting competitions go, that does not prove the superiority of one rifle over another. What proves that is having the same group of soldiers test several different rifles from both a bunch of unmodified SA-80's (to rule out lemons) and M16A2's with ACOG's. The tests would have to be done under controlled circumstances with same ammo, using new rifles that hadn't been used.

Yes. Soldiers who were not used to firing with one configuration of rifle would be good, or failing that, equal sized groups used to each. Another problem might be that the US doesn't use the same 5.56 ammunition as the rest of NATO and it doesn't feed as well in the SA80 (and I imagine vice versa)* Why would the M16A2s have ACOG sights? Are they now standard issue? Even if they were, surely both weapons should be tried with the same sights.

However with that said, it wouldn't surprise me if the SA80 was more accurate. It has a pretty good reputation as being a highly accurate rifle. But for sure this not an area where the M16A2 is a slacker at. It also is deadly accurate.

Again, I didn't say it wasn't accurate, just not as accurate,

Quote[/b] ]

The best illustration I saw of this was at Ft. Leanordwood on a range where I saw this hillbily soldier from Kentucky place a clip of 11 rounds into the head of a target at 200 meters. This was just using iron sights. With optics that guy could have probably had tighter shot groupings.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

1) The M16 doesn't use clips, it uses magazines.

2) Grouping size is usually measured in millimetres or inches. A head is actually quite a big size for a group, even at 200m.

I've seen group sizes for 10 rounds (although we normally group with 5 rounds) at the size of a thumbnail. Thats at 100m though. And that wasn't remarkable, just quite good.

*please don't someone jump in with some remark about the rounds being similar. They are both 5.56, nominally 5.56 NATO and both similar dimensions, but the American ammunition is slightly different to the ammunition used by the British (slightly more propellant, AFAIR - so it causes stoppages in rifles not designed for it)

[MontyVCB 0]

i don't think that the barrel is free floating now that i think of it, as the gas parts at the front of the rifle are connected to the barrel in some way or another.....

and i can aggree with Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX on every point  

[stgn 39]

i don't think that the barrel is free floating now that i think of it, as the gas parts at the front of the rifle are connected to the barrel in some way or another.....

and i can aggree with Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX on every point  

Well the gass system has to be atached to the barrel in order to make the weapon reload and you could get a 100% FFP but ten you would have a single shot rifle like a sniperrifle. So im still prity sure its a FFP much more than an M16A2 enyway where the hangaurds are attached to the barrel.

@Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]however as the war in Iraq has shown, even support units can and will experience heavy combat and must be proficient with their weapons. That is why emphasis is placed on just being able to qualify and not on being "accurate" shots.

It amazes me that a lot of US military figures seem to think you can be proficient with a weapon but unable to hit what you are aiming at.  Brassing up the area looks good in films, but does little in real life.  Accurate fire is needed in engaging AND in suppresing the enemy - rounds hitting nowhere near the enemy position don't suppress.

I think he ment that it was more important that soldiers could use their weapon to fire directly at the enemy than being expert shooters on a firing range.

Good shooters ar not always good figters.

Statistic shows that there is big difference firing on a paper taget than a human being.

STGN

[MontyVCB 0]

im pretty certian is not free floating, as the handguard does touch the barrel, other wise how would stay on

?, next time i get a chance i'll look into it

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

I didnt say it was easy, I said 'anyone can be taught to shoot accurately.'

Sure given enough time and money. I was just saying most military forces don't have that luxury of having their soldiers spend large amounts of time on the riflerange perfecting their marksmanship skills. Maybe the UK military is different.

Quote[/b] ]

In Basic Training I scored expert with the M16A2 (iron sights). However there were some in my platoon who were only barely able to qualify even after intensive coaching and training on marksmanship skills.

Well, the quality of the teacher does have a significant effect. I did not say what you seem to think I did. Some people are naturally good shots; some arent, some learn quickly, some dont. However, anyone can be taught to shoot accurately, although not exceptionally.

The instructors in US Army Basic Training are excellent. Plus the fundamentals of basic marksmanship are not rocket science. Technique also varys from shooter to shooter. For example I simply stop breathing for a second when I shoot instead of trying to fire in between breaths as some instructors teach according to the US Army field manuals on rifle marksmanship. Also when I use the term "accurate" I mean being able to hit consistently under field conditions center mass on a target out to 300 meters. Usually in the US Army they encourage soldiers not to even shoot at 300 meter pop-up targets if they are having problems qualifiying.

There are some soldiers who actually have a very nice tight shot grouping when they zero their rifles...yet who absolutely suck firing at pop up targets.

Quote[/b] ]

Maybe with months of steady practice that person could learn to shoot accurately. However in the real world, armies do not have the $$ to send their troops out to the range constantly for marksmanship training. That gets very expensive. With support units, they get even less marksmanship training...

All british serving personel get trained and tested every year on rifle handling skills. Everyone in uniform is a rifleman first and a specialist second. I know most branches of the US military do things differently, but thats irrelevant.

Um... actually the US Army does the same. Once or twice a year support units qualify not only on rifles but also support weapons if that unit is assigned support weapons as mine was.

During the year we also trained on rifle marksmanship simulators as well. Other branches of the US military (Navy, Coast Guard, ect...) I am not sure about but I assume that likewise they qualify on rifles at least once a year.

however as the war in Iraq has shown, even support units can and will experience heavy combat and must be proficient with their weapons. That is why emphasis is placed on just being able to qualify and not on being "accurate" shots.

It amazes me that a lot of US military figures seem to think you can be proficient with a weapon but unable to hit what you are aiming at. Brassing up the area looks good in films, but does little in real life. Accurate fire is needed in engaging AND in suppresing the enemy - rounds hitting nowhere near the enemy position don't suppress.

I didn't say that. Proficient means you can hit something like I believe 24 out of 40 of the targets you shoot at (I may be slightly off on that score as its been a few years since I was in the military). Events in Iraq have proven that US soldiers are MORE then capable of hitting their targets.

Also actually rounds hitting near an enemy position DO suppress. If you got machine rounds hitting all around you, that is most likely going cause most soldiers to take cover unless they have no cover and can not shift positions. From older Vietnam veterans I talked to, one of the key things to do against an enemy that has your position pinpointed is to shift positions randomly if and when it is possible to do so under protective cover (like a long a trench with multiple firing positions). One of the beautiful things about weapons like the SAW and M240 is their ability to sature a target area with lead. Sadly however, these days the trend is to use SAW's and M240's like rifles by equipping them with optics. For an M240 this certainly helps in long range fire which is good. But for close range fire suppression against multiple targets...not so good. One of the purposes for suppressive fire as you should know, is to keep the enemy from returning accurate fire in order to allow your riflemen to put down carefully aimed accurate fire on their targes. Yes a machine gun can hit rather precisely, but then it just becomes a big rifle if used in this manner. If thats all soldiers needed then they wouldn't need changeable barrels on their machine guns.

Quote[/b] ]

Basic Army rifle qualificiation is not sniper school. Only those in infantry units with exceedingly good natural marksmanship skills are selected for sniper schools where they recieve advanced marksmanship training.

Please stop telling me how to suck eggs. I've competed at national and international shoots. I know how to shoot. And again, this may apply to the US army, but not to other professional armies.

I never said you suck eggs. You're saying that yourself. I also never said you didn't know how to shoot and I'm not psychic where I know your background. Thats why I asked if you had ever served in the military. I simply said that you have an unrealistic expectation of the ability for most armies to train all of their soldiers to shoot "accurately".

By accurate, I define that as being able to hit 85% of what they aim at in field conditions against pop-up targets out to 300 meters. So training soldiers to consistently put holes in the center of a target paper in untimed low pressure enviornments is not my idea of training a soldier to shoot accurately.

Quote[/b] ]

Now optical sights like the ACOG's do improve marksmanship scores, but still it is one thing getting a rifleman to qualify, but quite another to get them to be "accurate" shots especially at 300 meters.

How can you pass the test without being accurate? Is the test simply firing the weapon randomly down the range??

I never said that. In US Army qualifications you have pop up targets going out to 300 meters that you are timed on in how quickly you can engage them. For more realism, pyrotechnics (flash/bang grenades in grenade pits, artillery simulaters, ect...) can be set off near the shooters to help simulate combat conditions. You also have a limited amount of ammunition. If you don't even try hitting the 300 meter targets and just concentrate on sub 250meter targets and hit most of them, you can still qualify just fine. If I remember correctly you only need to hit 24 out of 40 pop up targets to qualify.

But as I mentioned before, US troops in Iraq are having no problems hitting their targets if they get a chance to shoot at them before the militants run away. ACOGs are great... and the quality of rifle and infantry skills of most of the Iraqi militants is not all that great (although a few have shown tactical competency).

Quote[/b] ]

As for whether the SA80 is more accurate, perhaps it is. However overall the M16A2 is fairly accurate and does the job well out to 500 meters which is what USMC infantrymen train to shoot out to.

as individuals? Or as a fire team? I was talking about individual shooting. Fire teams can engage well past that distance.

From my understanding this is as an individual rifleman.

Quote[/b] ]

US Army trains to shoot out to 300 meters.

Also the accuracy of the M16 can be improved significantly with a modified trigger assembly. A heavy target barrel also improves things as well. A friend of mine has a customized AR-15 with a target barrel, adjustable trigger, and some type of high power scope. The accuracy on that rifle is extremely nice.

That must be nice for him. Not really relevant to issued rifles though, is it?

Sure it is. These modifications can be added to standard issue rifles with only a minimal increase in weight. But generally target barrels are only required on designated marksmanship systems for more precise medium range sniping.

From my understanding, this is what the SA-80 LSW variant is used most of the time for rather then as its intended role as light machine gun.

Quote[/b] ]

As far as shooting competitions go, that does not prove the superiority of one rifle over another. What proves that is having the same group of soldiers test several different rifles from both a bunch of unmodified SA-80's (to rule out lemons) and M16A2's with ACOG's. The tests would have to be done under controlled circumstances with same ammo, using new rifles that hadn't been used.

Yes. Soldiers who were not used to firing with one configuration of rifle would be good, or failing that, equal sized groups used to each. Another problem might be that the US doesn't use the same 5.56 ammunition as the rest of NATO and it doesn't feed as well in the SA80 (and I imagine vice versa)* Why would the M16A2s have ACOG sights? Are they now standard issue? Even if they were, surely both weapons should be tried with the same sights.

Yeah thats true. But again these are things that can be controlled for with proper ammunition for each rifle, and proper training on each weapon system. I mention ACOG sights because if I'm not mistaken isn't that what the SA80 generally uses? It is not standard issue on M16A2's but it would be a little unfair matching up a rifle with iron sights to one with optical sights.

My point is basically that variables should be controlled to test the rifles against each other in a fair manner.

Quote[/b] ]

The best illustration I saw of this was at Ft. Leanordwood on a range where I saw this hillbily soldier from Kentucky place a clip of 11 rounds into the head of a target at 200 meters. This was just using iron sights. With optics that guy could have probably had tighter shot groupings.

1) The M16 doesn't use clips, it uses magazines.

2) Grouping size is usually measured in millimetres or inches. A head is actually quite a big size for a group, even at 200m.

I've seen group sizes for 10 rounds (although we normally group with 5 rounds) at the size of a thumbnail. Thats at 100m though. And that wasn't remarkable, just quite good.

Yeah yeah... clips...magazines...the boxes full off ammo that you shove up into your rifle.... and these 11 rounds were in a grouping. All 11 rounds were in roughly a 5" diameter circle. I know because I was the scorer for this rifleman and had to bring down their target from behind a bunker and mark their group with a colored circle..different colors for different numbers of rounds inside that circle.

This was also using ironsights under timed circumstances in the prone position and not bench shooting like on a competition range. If that soldier was given more time to shoot and a decent optical sight system, I imagine the shot groupings would have been much tighter.

Anyhoo... again my point was that expecting all infantry to be snipers is unrealistic. There are benchmarks for accuracy in most Armies and generally you will have a bell shaped curve in terms of rifle proficiency with the majority of your shooters not fully utilizing the true potential of accuracy in the more accurate assault rifles. But this is under field conditions.

In untimed bench type firing ranges, results should improve alot. But soldiers in combat don't shoot from a bench usually and targets generally don't stand stationary. Now soldier's marksmanship skills can improve with more training. But the keyword is "more" and that gets expensive. These days a modern soldier has ALOT to train in besides just marksmanship skills and funding is often scarse and goes to things that are deemed more critical if marksmanship training is seen as sufficient. I can't speak for other military forces, but in the US Army at least, I think the training is sufficient and that the rifles used (M16A2/M4A1) are more then accurate enough to hit their targets out to 300 meters in the hands of an average US Army soldier. Designated marksman and snipers will of coarse receive additional training (and more accurate rifles).

But who knows...maybe they'd like the SA-80 better then the M16's.

Personally my favorite infantry weapon is the M60 "pig" medium machine gun. Very accurate and capable of lethal close range and long range pinpoint and area suppressive fire.

Plus its spring loaded bipod allowed it really nice side to side traversing which, combined with its low muzzle rise in the prone position, allowed for excellent suppressive fire capability along a horizontal plane so that you could really saturate a target area nicely with most rounds hitting targets in that area. I have no clue why they don't use that style bipod anymore on the M249 or M240.

But I'm going offtopic. I still think the XM-8 is likely to win the replacement competition.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Placebo 29]

Let's not drift too far off topic please people

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

What happened to the xm8 then? i thought it was a shoe-in being that it had improved over everything the g36 fell short at.

[Bordoy 0]

Miles Teg: SA80 uses the SUSAT.

Placebo: I'm now finished on the SA80 topic

[stgn 39]

What happened to the xm8 then? i thought it was a shoe-in being that it had improved over everything the g36 fell short at.

How likely the weapon is to kill, M4A1/M16A4 vs XM8 versions

the higher the speed of M855 is the more it fragments when its hits and the more likely it is too kill.

Because the US Army demands rifles that are no longer than that of the M16 and M4 series of weapons, H&K had to make the barrel of the XM8BC so short that it dosen't give the M855 power enough to fragment when it hits at eny time, so the XM8BC is an overpowered .22 rifle. The reason for the short barrel is that the XM8/G36 system is bigger than that of the AR15. Another lenthe problem is the precission rifle/light surport weapon cause its only as "short" as a M16A2 when the butt is retracted all the way in, which means that the rifle is too long when fully deployed. also the XM8 has gotton wight issues from being a very light weapon system to being a relativly heavy system now at 7.5 pounds(XM8BC) which isen't so much lighter than a M4 equiped with a ton of assories, witch by the way could be cut off as the sighting system of the XM8 easily fits an M4. Not to mention the precission rifle/light surport weapon witch now wights over 10 pounds. Now where does that wight come from you might well the handgaurds melted on the generation 1 rifles after extensive fire, there has been installed back up sights on the rifle and a couple of other improvements over the Gen 1 system.

STGN

[Ares1978 0]

the higher the speed of M855 is the more it fragments when its hits and the more likely it is too kill.

Because the US Army demands rifles that are no longer than that of the M16 and M4 series of weapons, H&K had to make the barrel of the XM8BC so short that it dosen't give the M855 power enough to fragment when it hits at eny time, so the XM8BC is an overpowered .22 rifle.

At a range over 125 yards, they all are apparently.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

What happened to the xm8 then? i thought it was a shoe-in being that it had improved over everything the g36 fell short at.

is there any significant change to the G36? I think there isnt! And where is the G36 falling short at?

[Necromancer- 0]

What happened to the xm8 then? i thought it was a shoe-in being that it had improved over everything the g36 fell short at.

is there any significant change to the G36? I think there isnt! And where is the G36 falling short at?  

It's made in Germany.

Just kidding.

[stgn 39]

What happened to the xm8 then? i thought it was a shoe-in being that it had improved over everything the g36 fell short at.

is there any significant change to the G36? I think there isnt! And where is the G36 falling short at?  

Well the Xm8 had a retractable butt, bolt hold back action(major improvement in terms of handeling), and you can melt the handgaruds of an G36 by shooting it with a surpressor on an American who has some G36's expirenced this. The XM8 has better sights.

Is it right that the German army only projekts eatch soldier to fire about 70 round thrugh his/her G36 a year?

STGN

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Sure given enough time and money. I was just saying most military forces don't have that luxury of having their soldiers spend large amounts of time on the riflerange perfecting their marksmanship skills. Maybe the UK military is different.

Well, if you look back at how this was brought up, the original point - which you disagreed with - was that anyone can be taught to shoot accurately (although some aren't, because it would take too long, MOST are - the crux of the arguement), which is why accurate rifles are important.

Quote[/b] ]

Also when I use the term "accurate" I mean being able to hit consistently under field conditions center mass on a target out to 300 meters. Usually in the US Army they encourage soldiers not to even shoot at 300 meter pop-up targets if they are having problems qualifiying.

Again I must register amazement at these standards - people can actually pass if they cannot hit any 300m targetry?

Quote[/b] ]

There are some soldiers who actually have a very nice tight shot grouping when they zero their rifles...yet who absolutely suck firing at pop up targets.

And you still say the teaching is excellent?

Quote[/b] ]

Um... actually the US Army does the same. Once or twice a year support units qualify not only on rifles but also support weapons if that unit is assigned support weapons as mine was.

During the year we also trained on rifle marksmanship simulators as well. Other branches of the US military (Navy, Coast Guard, ect...) I am not sure about but I assume that likewise they qualify on rifles at least once a year.

So why, according to you, can't they shoot?

Quote[/b] ]

Also actually rounds hitting near an enemy position DO suppress.

Again, NOT what I said.

"rounds hitting nowhere near the enemy position don't suppress."

If a soldier is such a bad shot, then they WONT hit anywhere near the enemy position - rounds hitting a few hundred metres away - which is what will happen if they miss high or low - do not suppress the enemy and detract from efficiency.

Quote[/b] ]

If you got machine rounds hitting all around you, that is most likely going cause most soldiers to take cover unless they have no cover and can not shift positions. From older Vietnam veterans I talked to, one of the key things to do against an enemy that has your position pinpointed is to shift positions randomly if and when it is possible to do so under protective cover (like a long a trench with multiple firing positions).

Again with the egg sucking. This is extremely basic stuff. Recruit level training, and not even relevant.

Quote[/b] ]

I never said you suck eggs. You're saying that yourself. I also never said you didn't know how to shoot and I'm not psychic where I know your background.

When I replied to you and told you I had served in the military, but you kept on talking about things I'd expect a 2 day recruit to know, then you were, in fact, 'trying to teach your granny how to suck eggs.'

Quote[/b] ]

By accurate, I define that as being able to hit 85% of what they aim at in field conditions against pop-up targets out to 300 meters. So training soldiers to consistently put holes in the center of a target paper in untimed low pressure enviornments is not my idea of training a soldier to shoot accurately.

Maybe the US trains in untimed low pressure environments. The British do not. Strawman.

Quote[/b] ]

I never said that. In US Army qualifications you have pop up targets going out to 300 meters that you are timed on in how quickly you can engage them. For more realism, pyrotechnics (flash/bang grenades in grenade pits, artillery simulaters, ect...) can be set off near the shooters to help simulate combat conditions. You also have a limited amount of ammunition. If you don't even try hitting the 300 meter targets and just concentrate on sub 250meter targets and hit most of them, you can still qualify just fine. If I remember correctly you only need to hit 24 out of 40 pop up targets to qualify.

I'm no maths genius, but I'm pretty sure that 24 out of 40 is nowhere near your quoted 85% of targetry hit. So is it possible to pass the US test without being an accurate shot? Going on what you just said, yes it is.

Quote[/b] ]

Sure it is. These modifications can be added to standard issue rifles with only a minimal increase in weight. But generally target barrels are only required on designated marksmanship systems for more precise medium range sniping.

....but they are not.... so it's not relevant. I understand you can switch out the barrel on an M16 to fit the "reciever" to a .50 cal barrel. That doesn't mean that the penetration and accuracy of that round should be used when you are talking about standard assault rifles and their replacements, which is what this topic is about.

Quote[/b] ]

From my understanding, this is what the SA-80 LSW variant is used most of the time for rather then as its intended role as light machine gun.

Light support weapon. Its not a machine gun. It is used as a light support weapon more often, usually kept with the base of fire, or provide larger volumes of fire.

Quote[/b] ]

Yeah thats true. But again these are things that can be controlled for with proper ammunition for each rifle, and proper training on each weapon system.

yes, good.

Quote[/b] ]

I mention ACOG sights because if I'm not mistaken isn't that what the SA80 generally uses?

No, it uses the SUSAT (Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux) in conjunction with the CWS (Common Weapon Sight) for some individuals at night.

Quote[/b] ]

It is not standard issue on M16A2's but it would be a little unfair matching up a rifle with iron sights to one with optical sights.

On the contrary, that is what the topic is about: Standard issue Rifle A vs standard issue rifle B. You can't say its unfair to compare the G36 and the M16 because the G36 is not made of steel. The M16, as standard, does not come equipped with the ACOG.

Quote[/b] ]

Yeah yeah... clips...magazines...the boxes full off ammo that you shove up into your rifle.... and these 11 rounds were in a grouping. All 11 rounds were in roughly a 5" diameter circle. I know because I was the scorer for this rifleman and had to bring down their target from behind a bunker and mark their group with a colored circle..different colors for different numbers of rounds inside that circle.

This was also using ironsights under timed circumstances in the prone position and not bench shooting like on a competition range.

I have never shot using a bench, sling support (as in the apparatus that is worn when prone, not the standard sling for hanging the weapon off the body when not in use), and I've never seen a military competition shoot that was not timed. A great deal of them involve running as well.

Quote[/b] ]

If that soldier was given more time to shoot and a decent optical sight system, I imagine the shot groupings would have been much tighter.

Maybe. Maybe it was a fluke. Did he do it again next time? Can he do it consistently? Still - its not changing anything - the M16 is not the most accurate rifle in the world (and I doubt the SA80 is nowadays either)

Quote[/b] ]

Anyhoo... again my point was that expecting all infantry to be snipers is unrealistic.

Again, nobody has said that they should be. The entire point you started arguing against was my assertion that accurate rifles are not unnecesary because 'the soldiers can't shoot as accurately as the rifle anyway'. Thats not true.

Quote[/b] ]

There are benchmarks for accuracy in most Armies and generally you will have a bell shaped curve in terms of rifle proficiency with the majority of your shooters not fully utilizing the true potential of accuracy in the more accurate assault rifles. But this is under field conditions.

But an accurate rifle is a hell of a lot more use than an inaccurate one. Its a lot easier to suppress an enemy with an accurate rifle than with an inaccurate one.

Quote[/b] ]

In untimed bench type firing ranges, results should improve alot.

Again, strawman. Nobody except you is talking about untimed bench shooting.

Quote[/b] ]

But soldiers in combat don't shoot from a bench usually and targets generally don't stand stationary.

Nor do the targets we train on

Quote[/b] ]

[snip long paragraph which I agree with on the whole]

The bipod on the LSW is terrible. One like that sounds a lot better.

But I'm going offtopic. I still think the XM-8 is likely to win the replacement competition.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

I don't know what will win it, but it won't be the SA80 (even if the A2 were as wonderful as H&K say it is, it would still never win- too many flaws in the design. )

[MontyVCB 0]

i did'nt even kno that HK had put in the SA80 for the competition , steyr is doing an A3 model of their AUG, they say its being modded so it can use USGI 30rd mags , tbh i can see the armalite series of weapon in use with the us army for some time to come.

[Bordoy 0]

So the weapons currently running for the US armed forces standard issues rifle are:

G36

XM-8

SA80 (?)

what else?

[MontyVCB 0]

y would HK put up 3 different rifles up for the competition?, and i'll think you find HK do not own the rights for the SA80, they were only asked to do the A2 upgrade

[hellfish6 7]

y would HK put up 3 different rifles up for the competition?

3 times more likely to win the contract if they do.

[Bordoy 0]

y would HK put up 3 different rifles up for the competition?, and i'll think you find HK do not own the rights for the SA80, they were only asked to do the A2 upgrade  

Yer thats true, Lee Enfield actually made the weapon.

[Bordoy 0]

SA80 Prototype

I also didn't know there was a carbine version fo the L85

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

So the weapons currently running for the US armed forces standard issues rifle are:

G36

XM-8

SA80 (?)

what else?

I don't think the SA80 is actually in consideration, it has too bad a reputation (deserved or not)