Shoot-out at Blackwater

[Gordy 0]

New vids from Blackwater HK416 live fire tests.

enjoy. Real Player required

Also, tests of AA-12 Full Auto Shotgun

real player required

To read the story go to:

My Webpage

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

SWEET! I love HK weapons and this one is very good.

[Daniel 0]

First two links are down for me.

EDIT: Downloaded Real, got em working - that AA12 is awesome!!

[Mr_Tea 0]

Yeeehaaa. Those HK guns rocks. One of my favorite guns in OFP is the HK G( no, not 36), it`s the G11 from "The HK pack".

The G11 is no longrange weapon, but for short to middle distances this gun is perfect.

But for this full auto cal.12 weapons all I can say is, wow, so much firepower for one person.

[scars09 9]

nice vids. thx!

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

Yeeehaaa.  Those HK guns rocks. One of my favorite guns in OFP is the HK G( no, not 36), it`s the G11 from "The HK pack".

The G11 is no longrange weapon, but for short to middle distances this gun is perfect.

But for this full auto cal.12 weapons all I can say is, wow, so much firepower for one person.

Yep, the G11 was a nice weapon and way ahead of it's time, but it was actually an assault rifle so also for the longer distance. The burst system with internal recoil meant it could fire VERY accurate bursts. And the best; no ejecting brass, because the bullets were caseless.

The Auto Assault 12 (AA12) is awesome, although blasting away the entire magazine in full-auto is almost useless. In Iraq however it has already proven itself to be a good weapon in CQB. A 'streetsweeper' like this is feared by the enemy. The other shotguns in service are semi-automatic (self-loading) and even some older pump-action shotguns. Both the semi-auto and the AA12 are extremely good weapons.

[Ares1978 0]

Yep, the G11 was a nice weapon and way ahead of it's time, but it was actually an assault rifle so also for the longer distance. The burst system with internal recoil meant it could fire VERY accurate bursts. And the best; no ejecting brass, because the bullets were caseless.

Unfortunately the drawbacks outweighed the advantages. The brass isn't that much of a problem and you don't really need to eliminate the ejector to make a reliable weapon. The G11 was a nice innovative idea, but not a very practical solution.

About the clips:

"It's the only full auto shotgun in the world that works."

"It's recoilless."

The HK416 seemed decent, but not really special.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

About the clips:

"It's the only full auto shotgun in the world that works."

"It's recoilless."

The HK416 seemed decent, but not really special.

What's so funny? The AA-12 is indeed almost recoilless. Amazing indeed, but I've seen a video of someone firing it with one hand and a stretched arm. Try that with a normal shotgun and you'll never play golf again (or do any other major thing with that arm).

The weapon could very well be the the easiest weapon to fire in the world. It's a devestating weapon that can be operated by a 10-year old. Amazing.

The HK416 is not that amazing, but it removes a lot of the the faults in the M16 and M4 series of rifles. It's a product improvement and a damn fine one.

[Ares1978 0]

What's so funny? The AA-12 is indeed almost recoilless. Amazing indeed, but I've seen a video of someone firing it with one hand and a stretched arm. Try that with a normal shotgun and you'll never play golf again (or do any other major thing with that arm).

The weapon could very well be the the easiest weapon to fire in the world. It's a devestating weapon that can be operated by a 10-year old. Amazing.

In the clip, the first shots fired already showed that it does have recoil, that's what's so funny. Actually, that wasn't accurate either, they guy praising it in his marketing speech was the really funny part. "No recoil", "recoilless" and "almost recoilless" just isn't the same as "low recoil". People who are used to .308's call the 7.62x39 "recoilless", which is not true either. Relatively low recoil, yes. The AA-12 does seem to have very little barrel jump, but that is completely different. It's not especially impressive either.

And since you brought it up, I have shot my own shotgun (Model 870) with one hand and my arm stretched (done it with a Mosin Nagant, too), and since I didn't golf before, I still don't. But I can still throw darts without any problems. If the shooter happens to be an idiot or a beginner, he can break his hand with a single shot from any large caliber revolver, and the recoil from a .44 is usually much more severe than that from a 12 gauge. Of course, this is just how I have experienced it.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

yes, you're right. It's about experience and knowlegde of the weapon what makes the difference. But the recoil of the AA12 is said (I haven't fired it, so I can't say) to be much lower than that of a normal shotgun and on full-auto is easy to handle. It's accuracy is up to the shooter I'd say. I can't believe it's more accurate than a pistol, but is doens't really have to be (buckshot does wonders) and it's not used on long ranges anyway (although the FRAG12 ammo could change that).

All the seperate issues about the gun are not that spectacular, but all those issues in one gun is. No cleaning, low recoil, full-auto, can withstand dirt, ect. All that is pretty good. For a military CQB weapon it's almost perfect and at least much better than any of the other service shotguns.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately the drawbacks outweighed the advantages. The brass isn't that much of a problem and you don't really need to eliminate the ejector to make a reliable weapon. The G11 was a nice innovative idea, but not a very practical solution.

I still think that for it´s time the G11 was kind of revolutionary. Ok, bulky, unreliable when shot hot, pre-ignites with hot chamber and all that, but keep in mind that is was the first gun to use caselees ammo in infantry useage (at least what I know off). In the early 90´s this was started and I had the fun to shoot it. It was bulky as hell and somehow wrong as no casing came out and the loading strip was unusual, but I like the idea.

Also, don´t forget the costs. Especially during training and CM´s raw material spent in large amounts is a cost factor. Brass isn´t that cheap when spent in 1000´s of rounds, that´s why there are collections at ranges to reuse the material.

Therefore the concept was certainly right, but the issues that came with the new method were just too many and the customers wanted a solid gun with no issues and reliability in many climate zones. The testing phase of the G11 wasn´t very extensive as there was no real field testing. It was tested under camp conditions but no real combat test ever took place.

Undoubtetly we will see the tech carrier in other versions soon. Maybe in 5 , maybe in 10 years. Caseless ammo is a good thing. Once they get the pressure/dirt problem solved it will be standard. That´s what I am sure off.

2 cents whatever

[Ares1978 0]

All the seperate issues about the gun are not that spectacular, but all those issues in one gun is. No cleaning, low recoil, full-auto, can withstand dirt, ect. All that is pretty good. For a military CQB weapon it's almost perfect and at least much better than any of the other service shotguns.

No cleaning, low recoil, full-auto, can withstand dirt, ect. are absolutely something to aim for, but in my ears it sounds like the sales speech that they used to sell the original M16. Once I start hearing that from the right people, I'm sure my scepticism will diminish. In my opinion, for a military CQB weapon ANY shotgun is marginal, but that's another story. (Effective range: "across the street".)

I still think that for it´s time the G11 was kind of revolutionary. Ok, bulky, unreliable when shot hot, pre-ignites with hot chamber and all that, but keep in mind that is was the first gun to use caselees ammo in infantry useage (at least what I know off). In the early 90´s this was started and I had the fun to shoot it. It was bulky as hell and somehow wrong as no casing came out and the loading strip was unusual, but I like the idea.

Also, don´t forget the costs. Especially during training and CM´s raw material spent in large amounts is a cost factor. Brass isn´t that cheap when spent in 1000´s of rounds, that´s why there are collections at ranges to reuse the material.

Therefore the concept was certainly right, but the issues that came with the new method were just too many and the customers wanted a solid gun with no issues and reliability in many climate zones. The testing phase of the G11 wasn´t very extensive as there was no real field testing. It was tested under camp conditions but no real combat test ever took place.

Undoubtetly we will see the tech carrier in other versions soon. Maybe in 5 , maybe in 10 years. Caseless ammo is a good thing. Once they get the pressure/dirt problem solved it will be standard. That´s what I am sure off.

2 cents whatever

I absolutely agree that it was revolutionary. Nice idea, but poorly executed. Which is pretty much what you were saying, too? Something I would like to know is how well the ammunition holds up in the hands of soldiers and especially in cold climates, and how long it can be stored.

We could also forget caseless ammunition completely, and start developing weapons that use ammunition that doesn't have a combustion-based propellant, or at least ammunition with cartridges made of alternative materials. Caseless ammo was used quite extensively during the 1300-1800's. One thing that will make it harder to sell caseless ammunition, is the fact that it will never conquer the civilian market. Not as long as people want to load their own cartridges. With brass and gunpowder, it's easy to do.

[shadow 6]

Unfortunately the drawbacks outweighed the advantages. The brass isn't that much of a problem and you don't really need to eliminate the ejector to make a reliable weapon.

The brass is your main reliability problem, especially in full-auto. If you want fast and reliable full-auto then get rid of the brass. The G11 was and still is revolutionary as a combat-rifle. Its not the first rifle to use caseless ammo but it is the first field-rifle to use caseless ammo.

Another thing you gain in removing the brass is exactly like Bals just said; you reduce the ammo cost. But probably the most noticeable difference for a soldier would be the weight. Without the weight of the brass you can easily carry more ammo in the field (and you'll probably need it too due to the insane rate of fire-potential of a rifle firing caseless ammo).

Are the Blackwater videos available in any other format besides reelplayer?

[Ares1978 0]

The brass is your main reliability problem, especially in full-auto. If you want fast and reliable full-auto then get rid of the brass. The G11 was and still is revolutionary as a combat-rifle. Its not the first rifle to use caseless ammo but it is the first field-rifle to use caseless ammo.

Another thing you gain in removing the brass is exactly like Bals just said; you reduce the ammo cost. But probably the most noticeable difference for a soldier would be the weight. Without the weight of the brass you can easily carry more ammo in the field (and you'll probably need it too due to the insane rate of fire-potential of a rifle firing caseless ammo).

That's a bit ass-backwards, isn't it? I think there are enough examples out there of reliable weapons that use brass. Making caseless ammunition for that specific reason is just like solving a problem that doesn't exist. It's an issue related to weapon design.

I don't deny that the materials are expensive and heavy, but the weight is just a part of the equation. How much space would the ammunition require, especially considering that soldiers would most likely waste more ammunition if they were armed with a G11-type rifle (both due to the rate of fire and the puny caliber). And do we really want soldiers to shoot more?

[shadow 6]

Having a very high rate of fire does'nt mean you necesarely spend more ammo. Limit the burst to 2 or 3 rounds and you have a higher probability of a kill than with a single round because the 2 or 3 rounds will all have already left the barrel before the barrel have begun to rise.

A good example is the G11. I read a few articles on it. Every shooter said a 2 (or was it a 3?) round-burst felt like a single-shot.

A rifle using clips of caseless ammo is certainly not a step backwards.

Quote[/b] ] I think there are enough examples out there of reliable weapons that use brass.

Thats does'nt mean you can't make a weapon using caseless ammo to be even more reliable. You can only get so far with firing-rates when you need mechanics to eject a case. Remove all that "excessive" mechanics and you have one less problem-source.

[Ares1978 0]

Having a very high rate of fire does'nt mean you necesarely spend more ammo. Limit the burst to 2 or 3 rounds and you have a higher probability of a kill than with a single round because the 2 or 3 rounds will all have already left the barrel before the barrel have begun to rise.

A good example is the G11. I read a few articles on it. Every shooter said a 2 (or was it a 3?) round-burst felt like a single-shot.

A rifle using clips of caseless ammo is certainly not a step backwards.

Well I disagree with that too. With a 2 or 3 round burst you are not increasing your probability of a hit (which is essentially more important than the actual kill, the kill is a "bonus") due to minimal dispersion, but you are wasting 1-2 rounds of ammunition. And with the G11, you will most likely need to hit the target more than once. Small caliber and relatively low muzzle velocity equals short effective range. The bursts are just fixing another problem that doesn't exist. It may not be a true step backwards, but it is not exactly a step forwards either. More like a step sideways. Switching to the G11 would be a step backwards.

Quote[/b] ]Thats does'nt mean you can't make a weapon using caseless ammo to be even more reliable. You can only get so far with firing-rates when you need mechanics to eject a case. Remove all that "excessive" mechanics and you have one less problem-source.

In principle, of course it doesn't mean you can't make weapons using caseless ammunition even more reliable. Neither does it mean that weapons using brass can't be made even more reliable than they are now. Every single unreliable weapon is unreliable because the designer didn't think things through or because of misuse by the client, and nothing can prevent that from happening with weapons using caseless ammunition. Caseless ammunition is supposed to fix a reliability problem that doesn't exist in principle or in practice.

And how high firing rates are necessary? How high rates are practical?

The "excessive" mechanics happen to work quite reliably and to do what brass did (sealing the chamber), you also need more, finer mechanics, which are inevitably more prone to cause problems.

I'm just pointing out some of the flaws I see, that's all. Feel free to show me that my concerns unfounded.

[Mr_Tea 0]

More info and videos about HK in here.

[Panda-PL- 0]

1) HK G11 has TWO rates of fire. The fullauto mode fires at 600rpm, while burst fire mode is 2x faster.

2) Caseless ammo allow to really make a gun silent. G11 makes

less noice then a bolt-action rifle. It's burst mode is so fast it can as well not be recognised as gunshots.

3) Caseless is better for feeding. It is less likely to get stuck in magazine even trough G11 has a 45 round mag. Usually in guns that have 1100+ rate of fire You'd need to polish and clean magazine's innterior to avoid jamming.

4) If you don't like 3-round burst mode then use 600rpm fullauto.

5) Low recoil is not only due to ammo but also to unique densign.

6) The overheating is no problm for modern proppelants.

7) The amount of ammo one can carry is important. It is one of reasons for switching to lightweight and tiny 5.56.

Still the gun was too bulky and overspecialised. But the idea of caseless ammo is an interesting one. Esspecially with attached suppressor.