Cool Guns for your Games

[Markdoc]

Just a note from an Army Infantry man: we were not allowed ever using the "handle." Drill sgt's through platoon Sgt's would flip if they ever caught you using the one on the top of your M-16/ M-4.

Yup - they want you to keep your hand on the grip, so it's ready to use. But when you are under fire, the nearest cover is 20 metres away and you have a case full of ammo for the squad MG in your other hand ... a handle's actually useful.

Other than that, I think the XM-8 is pretty wicked looking... But apparently it made it barely out of testing, and from what I heard they have now moved beyond it for the SCAR systems. which are being put into SoF right now.

SCAR:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm

Its funny, in that article it says that the Army is still going with the XM-8, I had heard somewhere that they had taken so long developing it that they no longer wanted it, and had moved on to other weapon systems (Favoring towards the SCAR light for Regular Army usage), but my sources my have been off, or just thought that (like the Army has done for the past many years) just adopt to the units whatever the SF were using as time went on... well, that's one thing that you can always say about the Army... it's always changing.

I think it might be more accurate to say that it's always changing its mind
SOCOM did order a bunch of SCARs for assessment - but then cancelled the order. They are apparently buying cheaper H&K M416's instead. It seems the Chiefs think the cost of replacing all the M16's/M4 in service is too expensive, for anything less than a major improvement in technology. Part of the reason for that might be frantic (and expensive) lobbying by Colt, whose weapons finished last in all three competitions held by the army, with 3x as many malfunctions as the next competitor (and about 6x as many as the XM8), but who want to hold onto their lucrative no-bid contracts.

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Ah, nice to see practical experience stuff coming into it. Nice. Thanks for the information, MarkDoc and Wolf.

The handle and all that just seems like aesthetics to me, but then again, my preferences fall into the 1911, revolvers, lever-action rifles, and pump shotguns... so I'm kind of a traditionalist anyway, I guess... or at least prefer the aesthetics and handling of basic stuff and have no reason to have a combat oriented firearm outside of simple interest or want. But, since this is Cool Guns for your Games, aesthetics matter to me. I'm a low-tech fan, I suppose, in the end. The new rifles are definitely more high-tech looking... and despite seeing the advantages of polymer and the like, I still prefer steel and wood for the most part... I just think its prettier. I now have two guns with "magic" finishes on them, and I still prefer bluing and the like. =)

Yup. Guessed as much

cheers, Mark

[Remjin]

Its all good. =)

[Vulcan]

Isn't the H&K 416 the one that won't jam no matter what you do to it?

[LordGhee]

No that is the AK LOL

[Sundog]

LOL is right. AK's jam quite frequently. Their "reliability" is a myth.

[Markdoc]

Isn't the H&K 416 the one that won't jam no matter what you do to it?

Oh, it'll jam - just at about 1/3 the rate of a regular M4. All guns jam - it's the nature of the beast. It's just a question of how often and then how easy it is to clear. M16/M4s have a reputation of being hard to clear, and a well-documented history of being relatively easy to jam.

As an amusing aside, on another thread we were talking about the old Garand M1. In WW2, the Brit.s considered purchasing M1s for their army, but it failed reliability testing, so they stuck with the old Lee-Enfield. Reliability testing back then involved - I am not kidding - burying the weapon in thick mud, leaving it there for 48 hours and then firing a thousand rounds through it. I doubt many modern weapons would hold up under those conditions!

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

Heh...what's with the 48 hours in the mud? Was that some kind of Lungfish Brigade?

[Markdoc]

Heh...what's with the 48 hours in the mud? Was that some kind of Lungfish Brigade?

I'm guessing it's based on the experiences of WW1, where troops and their weapons often spent a lot of time in the mud - and you got to admit, it's a pretty stringent test.

cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

That's almost certainly it. Those trenches were pretty bad. Still, from what I've seen of those trenches, if a rifle ever got buried in that mud for 48 hours, no one was ever going to see it again...

[Sundog]

In some cases, if you simply dropped it on the ground you weren't going to see it again! Especially in the winter, some of those areas were nothing but six plus feet of liquid mud.

[DusterBoy]

The purists sneered at the Lee Enfield Mk3 because it wasn't a Mauser. Then the British Army took it to war on the Western Front and promptly silenced all its critics. The SMLE achieved rates of fire so high, the Germans thought they were taking machine-gun fire. It's a beautiful weapon and one of my favourites.

And talking about the AK's myth of reliability, much about the AK has become mythologised.

[gewing]

The purists sneered at the Lee Enfield Mk3 because it wasn't a Mauser. Then the British Army took it to war on the Western Front and promptly silenced all its critics. The SMLE achieved rates of fire so high, the Germans thought they were taking machine-gun fire. It's a beautiful weapon and one of my favourites.

And talking about the AK's myth of reliability, much about the AK has become mythologised.

The SMLE is imo by FAR the best "bolt action Battle Rifle" The Mauser or Springfield were okay, but...
But Then, I think the Carcanos are underrated. At least the cartridges are. With appropriate bullets, either would have made a good assault rifle cartridge.

And if we want ABSOLUTE reliability... Double rifle.

[Wolf]

Yup - they want you to keep your hand on the grip, so it's ready to use. But when you are under fire, the nearest cover is 20 metres away and you have a case full of ammo for the squad MG in your other hand ... a handle's actually useful.

I'm not saying it's not useful, but if you ever got caught using it, then that's your @**, lol. Technically speaking, that's what your sling is for. Have no illusions, from a strait doctrine approach, you are not to touch the handle even when your life depends on it. In the "rear based mentality" of the Army in the 90's dress right dress is the way to go. Like my section Sargent told me when I was caught using the handle because my sling snapped and I had to assist carrying the 120MM mortar tube 2 miles from the motor pool to the arms room, "Only weak men and civilians use something like a carrying handle for your rifle, it should not be there, and as a "real" soldier, you should not be using what's not there." Then I had to do pushups for a while until I understood what he was talking about.

Point being, even in your scenario, you really shouldn't use the carry handle, you can grab the forward grips and do just fine in that situation or even shoulder your rifle and again do well.

I think it might be more accurate to say that it's always changing its mind
SOCOM did order a bunch of SCARs for assessment - but then cancelled the order. They are apparently buying cheaper H&K M416's instead. It seems the Chiefs think the cost of replacing all the M16's/M4 in service is too expensive, for anything less than a major improvement in technology. Part of the reason for that might be frantic (and expensive) lobbying by Colt, whose weapons finished last in all three competitions held by the army, with 3x as many malfunctions as the next competitor (and about 6x as many as the XM8), but who want to hold onto their lucrative no-bid contracts.

Cheers, Mark

Figures, I try to keep my head out of the political games that run rampant when it comes to soldiers equipment. As an example look at the deal with Cry Multicam and then the decision to go with ACU cammo.

[st barbara]

Oh, it'll jam - just at about 1/3 the rate of a regular M4. All guns jam - it's the nature of the beast. It's just a question of how often and then how easy it is to clear. M16/M4s have a reputation of being hard to clear, and a well-documented history of being relatively easy to jam.

As an amusing aside, on another thread we were talking about the old Garand M1. In WW2, the Brit.s considered purchasing M1s for their army, but it failed reliability testing, so they stuck with the old Lee-Enfield. Reliability testing back then involved - I am not kidding - burying the weapon in thick mud, leaving it there for 48 hours and then firing a thousand rounds through it. I doubt many modern weapons would hold up under those conditions!

cheers, Mark

That reminds me of a documentary that I saw on the Australian Owen sub-machine gun being tested. At the time the owen was being developed the main alternatives (the Sten and the Thompson) were both susceptible to jamming in muddy conditions. The Owen was tested by being thrown into a nice gooey looking mud puddle, picked up and turned over, thrown back into the mud puddle, picked up again, had a magazine inserted and fired. It worked first time !