|
Post by Cali on Jan 25, 2014 3:12:14 GMT 1
Oh, Enfield. You used to be great, but it seems you just ain't cutting it anymore. Haven't made a decent service weapon since the Enforcer sniper rifle.
Why don't you limeys use the AR-18 anymore? I'm unfamiliar with the overall mechanical/functional differences between the AR-15/M16 and it, but it seems like an okay weapon, as far as "varmint" load AR's go. I mean, it may not be anything to go on, but it was good enough for the T-800 in the original Terminator movie. ;D
In a perfect world, every rifle company would be issued a Heckler & Koch G36...
|
|
|
Post by salty on Jan 25, 2014 3:35:04 GMT 1
Because the mod are skin flints and couldn't tell a decent weapon if it hit them between the eyes, for a sniper L96 or the L115, put those the hands of a Royal Marine Commando sniper nuff said, the SA80 "bulpup" was a waste of money, weak springs, plastic casing having to be taped down, gas cylinders popping out, only able to load 26-28 rounds as magazine dropped out etc etc etc You Yanks made good quality gear shame we didn't buy it
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Jan 25, 2014 3:52:35 GMT 1
Yeah, the M16's got a bit of a jamming problem though, but from what I hear, they're easy to maintain. The modern upgrades at least.
My dream rifle has gotta be either the Galil or the H&K G3. Gotta love those fat load, 7.62mm NATO battle rifles.
|
|
|
Post by salty on Jan 25, 2014 4:08:00 GMT 1
The L115A3 has a 8.58mm round plus, the longest sniper shot in history is a limey, with a range of 2,475 m I think, thankfully the upgrades for the SA80 or the new one is HK
|
|
|
Post by salty on Jan 25, 2014 4:10:09 GMT 1
I'd just liked to of had a minigun :-P
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jan 25, 2014 4:15:26 GMT 1
The fucked thing about the L85? It's basically the same weight as the L1A1 but fires a weaker caliber, breaks all the time, malfunctions all the time, is atrocious to use when wearing armor, etc. Had an RAF associate refer to it as the "civil servant": it doesn't work and you can't fire it.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jan 25, 2014 4:24:08 GMT 1
Oh, and by the way, SAS and SBS use an M4 carbine variant, last I knew. The issues we had with the M16 were the result of DoD penny-pinchers interfering with the adoption process (they opted for a different powder in the ammo which burned dirty as shit and ramped up the chamber pressure in the gun which forced its rate of fire from 700 rpm to over 1200 rpm. Combine that with the unit where the infamous phrase "our own rifles are killing us" originated having had their M14s until being swapped out for M16 literally 3 days before going out on the line and the brass claiming you didn't need to maintain the rifle and so never taught people how to clean or oil the damned things and you've got a complete goatfuck in the making.
The Galil is a fine rifle, but heavy as shit for a 5.56 NATO rifle and is expensive to make. The G36 is basically an AR-18 in a plastic shell and has issues with wandering point of impact past 100 meters once it gets heated up in a string of fire. Even better: the XM8 that was supposed to replace the M16 years ago had the nasty habit of fucking MELTING during extended strings of fire that one would expect in combat.
Now newer rifles like the SCAR-L do bring some improvements to the table, but then you have to look at cost. An M4A1 costs about 800-900 dollars. A SCAR is nearly 1500 dollars. It's just not worth 2x the money for a marginal improvement at best. Now if we're talking the SCAR-H, that thing just redefined what a 7.62 NATO battle rifle can be.
As far as the legacy rifles go (M14/M1A, FAL/SLR, G3), I'm rather partial to the G3 family (evidenced by me having the civilian variant, the HK91 as one of his weapons in my fic). They seem to work the best for me as far as weight, balance, recoil characteristics, etc. go.
|
|
|
Post by salty on Jan 25, 2014 4:54:51 GMT 1
Iron I ain't gonna disagree mate, the amount of money spent on the bullpup to "fix it" could've made a brand new one, I can't say I've tried many weapons, but the L1A1 "FN FAL" "SLR" stuck in my mind, especially in NI and Bos no issues, I was pissed off having to give it back, I'm quite partial to a Beretta, although had a Browning, now the boys will have G17? Not sure could be wrong
|
|
|
Post by salty on Jan 25, 2014 5:24:08 GMT 1
L85 is the SA80 or "Bullpup" we both agree was shite weapon, just been looking it up, apparently has been modified and improved upon significantly, no idea how true that is, as long as it doesn't fall apart like some fuckturd putting up shelves all good
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jan 25, 2014 5:54:25 GMT 1
Still can't be fired from the left shoulder (big deal for me since I'm left eye dominant), the length of pull on that thing is atrocious without armor (let alone with armor), and I'm not a fan of bullpups in general. Something about having the chamber pressed against your face scares the shit out of me in case I get a bad round in the chamber and the rifle becomes a grenade. I know the odds of that are low, but why take chances?
|
|
|
Post by salty on Jan 25, 2014 6:03:25 GMT 1
Poor excuse for a design, I had the magazine drop a few times, even had it expel a couple of rounds without firing, never was a fan never will be, just hope they done enough so that shut don't happen anymore, as a replacement if it was to get junked *fingers crossed* HK417? I think would be a good candidate
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jan 25, 2014 16:14:13 GMT 1
I'm leery of 7.62 NATO battle rifles as general issue these days (though I do like having at least one man per squad as a designated marksman using a scoped battle rifle in a squad-level supporting fires role). More weight to lug around and a heavier-recoiling rifle that needs more training to use. In my estimation (which honestly isn't worth much, mind you), if we had an upgraded projectile that provided better performance than the SS109 round, a well-built rifle with properly designed magazines (the weak point in any autoloading weapon), and training that consists of more than the usual "check the box" shit I usually see, then that would be a more cost-effective way to go.
Now if I could wave a magic wand and ignore things like funding and logistics, I'd say ditch 5.56 NATO for 6.8mm SPC. It's a round that follows the old .280 Enfield concept, not stellar at any one thing, but is capable enough to handle most tasks reasonably well.
|
|
|
Post by salty on Jan 25, 2014 17:27:27 GMT 1
And that dear Sir would be a weapon well worth having, versatile in all aspects, as an infantry man I wanted and needed a reliable weapon, hell my weapon kept me n my brother's alive. If the weapons unreliable then your in pos 70-30% weapon fails not nice. So yeah I like that's idea
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Jan 25, 2014 17:52:09 GMT 1
Another key requirement: proper maintenance procedures. Not sure how it is in the British Army, but over here it's not uncommon for grunts to shoot a gun til it breaks, turn it into the armorer who cannibalizes it for parts, throws the unbroken (but worn) parts in a bin, and then re-use those questionable parts in other guns that break. Then people wonder why shit doesn't work. Then you've got people who over-clean the gun and don't use enough oil (they don't get that a dirty, but lubed gun will run far better than a dirty gun with no lube (<voice=Sterling Archer>PHRASING!!</voice>)).
Of course there's also the infamous sand test that the M4 "failed". Part of the issue with that was the took an off-the-rack burst-fire gun and tried to hold it to the same criteria as a factory-new full-auto weapon. This is unfair as hell since the M4/M16 uses a trigger pack that has a cam that limits the burst to 3 rounds, but also has to be set a certain way to get a full burst. Picture a cog with a set of six teeth with longer teeth at the 1st and 4th positions; in semi-auto mode, you just pull the trigger and the mechanism catches every tooth. Flip it to burst and it'll ignore the shorter teeth and catch the longer ones. Depending on where the cog is at in the cycle (which tooth it's at), you might not get a full burst on the first go. It's not a malfunction or stoppage (the gun did fire and will continue to do so if you still have ammo and press the trigger again), but rather a quirk of the mechanism; yet it was counted as a "failure" in the testing. Later on, Colt submitted full-auto variants of the M4 and had it put through the same test. It passed handily, comparing favorably with the newest guns for a lower price point.
|
|
|
Post by salty on Jan 25, 2014 19:20:12 GMT 1
I don't know about now but, in my day *slaps head, never thought I'd say that* we was taught to maintain the weapon, no letting it rot or over cleaning it, keep chamber trigger springs clean jobs a goodun
|
|