good future gat??

#2
For the description, it appears to be a cross between a Steyr AUG, and M16, and an AK-47/Galil. It also appears to be easily convertible to eject from whichever side the soldier desires, although obviously not in the heat of combat.
 
#4
The blurb seems to concentrate on good ergonomics, accuracy, reliability and the rather groovy sight unit.

SUSAT- like sighting, flick a switch and it's a red dot laser thingy, no need to look through the sight at short ranges for accurate shots. Fully compatable with the night vision gear, no need to zero when attaching a night sight.

Costs 'hundreds of dollars'

Doesn't say if it will stag on for you and clean your boots....
 
#6
Handled but not fired the Tavor. Build quality was a bit gash really, more fisher price than H&K.
 
#7
The Germans usually get these sort of things right, and here's what they use;



SUSAT(ish) bottom sight and Red-dot top sight for quick aquisition. Very light, uses the same UGL and tactical light as the A2, 5.56mm and apparently quite reliable.

US forces are trialling its younger brother the XM8, which looks funkier but is essentially the same rifle.





Seems as though the A2 will be in service until 2012-15 (proposed), but if the spams like it I'm sure that it will feature on the test panel for a replacement when the time comes.

.:M-F:.

LINK: http://vb.game-host.org/en/XM8_carbine.htm
 
#9
I really dont understand why there isn't a direct US/UK weapon integration. Seeing as now and (most likely) in future operations the US and the UK will be working close together, integration would mean that there would be no sudden parts / ammunition shortage if the situation ever arose.

Seeing as the UGL and the Tac lights cost the MoD a fair amount of money, it would seem like a good idea to adopt a weapons platform that would allow previous procurements such as these to be integrated with a fair amount of ease.

.:M-F:.
 
#10
the.midnight.fox said:
I really dont understand why there isn't a direct US/UK weapon integration. Seeing as now and (most likely) in future operations the US and the UK will be working close together, integration would mean that there would be no sudden parts / ammunition shortage if the situation ever arose.

Seeing as the UGL and the Tac lights cost the MoD a fair amount of money, it would seem like a good idea to adopt a weapons platform that would allow previous procurements such as these to be integrated with a fair amount of ease.

.:M-F:.
Cos the Yanks won't adopt a bullpup and the Brits won't ditch the SA-80? One of the original ideas with NATO IIRC was that wpns would be standardised, but too many countries (particularly the US) have or had a Not Invented Here approach:

Just for general interest for anorak wearers like myself. during the Cold War, Nato countries 1st NATO rifles were:

Belgium - FAL
Canada - FAL variant
Denmark - G3
France - MAS49/56 (in 7.5x54 French),withdraws in 1966 from the integrated command and all foreign NATO forces leave France
Iceland - no army
Italy - Beretta BM59 (modified Garand)
Luxembourg - FAL
Netherlands - FAL
Norway - G3
Portugal - FAL, G3 & AR-10
United Kingdom - FAL variant
United States - M14 (modified Garand)
Greece - G3
Turkey - G3
Germany - FAL initially, then G3
Spain - CETME (forerunner of G3)
 
#11
Xm8 binned .It would be better off going to industry say"Build us a squaddy proof rifle that kills people " And then trial what they come up with .
 
#12
woody said:
Xm8 binned .It would be better off going to industry say"Build us a squaddy proof rifle that kills people " And then trial what they come up with .
What, you mean the old-fashioned way? Unthinkable! 8)
 
#13
the.midnight.fox said:
I really dont understand why there isn't a direct US/UK weapon integration. Seeing as now and (most likely) in future operations the US and the UK will be working close together, integration would mean that there would be no sudden parts / ammunition shortage if the situation ever arose.
Because UK and US doctrine is different. Do you want the UK to conduct its infantry operations like the spams? No? Thought not.

Seriously though, we follow US fashions at our peril.

Back in the late forties the UK developed the revolutionary 0.280" (7mm) round and EM2 rifle to fire it. However the spams bullied us into adopting a 'proper' full power 0.30" round and we gave in. However the US realised the error of their ways only a few years later and adopted the M16 by 1965. Not being rich like the spams, we had to stick with the SLR for another 20 years.

The UK often gets slated for the huge amount spent on the SA80, but believe me, it's chicken feed compared to the vast sums that the US have wasted on small arms research over the years, from the abortive SPIW programme in the 60s, to the hugely expensive ACR programme in the 80's and the even more costly OICW programme in the 90's. When they realised that this wasn't going to work, they decided that a 'quick win' was called for with the XM8. And now that's been binned, whilst they toy with the idea of a HK416 upgrade or perhaps decide to hold a competition.

Follow the US? A really bad move!
 
#14
Cos the Yanks won't adopt a bullpup ?

Curious why? What is their objection? Have used M16 briefly and just seemed too akward compared to what I was used to? Are bullpup's less reliable as a rule?
 
#15
Bullpups are typically easier to Patrol with and hold as they normally have the center of gravity near the pistol grip so no tired left arm if you havent got a sling. But as far as accuracy goes i hear it aint as good. Something to do with where the movement of the working parts takes place. However i could be talking utter sh1t as this information was passed on to me by a "canadian" about 4 years ago.
 
#16
Willie_McBride said:
Cos the Yanks won't adopt a bullpup ?

Curious why? What is their objection? Have used M16 briefly and just seemed too akward compared to what I was used to? Are bullpup's less reliable as a rule?
I've talked to a few US guys about this and have heard various objections such as "it can't be fired from either shoulder in the field", to "poor balance" and "dangerous with a breech explosion". When I've pointed out to them that the FN2000 has addressed all of these issues, they usually mutter something about it being "not a proper rifle". Curious; but I've basically concluded that with a lot of US kids being brought up shooting traditional hunting rifles, they just don't like the idea of bullpups.

There's no reason why bullpups should be less reliable than other rifles. Mind you, the L85A1 shows you just how bad a rifle can be. The AUG is pretty bad too, especially the Australian version, which has had quality problems. The FAMAS has a reputation for being reliable. It's a bit early to say on the FN2000 and Tavor, which don't have much of a track record as yet.
 

Gook

Old-Salt
#17
The Spams want a weapon shorter than the M16 so they adopt the M4, however with the shorter barrel the round isnt effective or lethal over the same range. Cases of people getting shot and keeping going in Afghanistan and Iraq?

If they want a short weapon with the punch of a full length rifle why not just go bullpup? Everythings dangerous with a breech explosion anyway and from seeing exchange National Guardsmans drills on our Gimpys last annual camp I'm surprised we didnt have a few faces blown off! Cant fire from the left shoulder, so what, it would hardly be worth shooting from the other shoulder, even in FIBUA, if you aren't practiced and it isnt instinctive (like right handed firing) then you won't be effective with it, especially with empty cases flying in front of your eyes. There was a left handed SA80 available but never bought by HM Govt back in the day if you mean for left handed soldiers, so thats possible with bullpups, but I suspect they mean when from firing from cover with your left side outermost.

The SA80s shorter than an M4 for FIBUA and vehicle work, but has the punch probably of an M16, full length 5.56. A bullpup in 6.8mm might be the better choice, closer to the punch of the old SLR and still a nice carbine-sized compact package. Or am I talking out of my arrse?
 
#18
The Yanks won't adopt a bullpup for "tactical reasons" - i.e. the left-shoulder issue.

Cases flying in front of your face is not an issue - you don't see them anyway. I've shot my SLR from the left shoulder plenty - I can't say I've ever noticed a case-flying issue.

The XM8 was to try to at least get something for their money out of the ridiculous OICW programme - it was the underslung rifle, essentially a Spammed-up HK G36. Walts love it, cos it looks all futuristic and stuff... :roll:
 
#19
Here is the proposed new spam system...the FN SCAR, that beat the XM8.



Last year, the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) issued a specification for the SOF (Special Operations Forces) Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR). At the time, the U.S. Army was also developing a new assault rifle, the XM-8, and it was thought that SOCOM might use a version of the XM-8 for its own needs. SCAR, however, is somewhat different from the XM-8. For one thing, SCAR must be able to quickly change barrels and receivers so that it can fire 5.56mm, 7.62mm (large cartridge, like the M-14 and American medium machine-guns) or the short (AK-47) 7.62mm rounds. Moreover, SCAR has to be even more rugged and reliable (and expensive to build) than the XM-8. As a result, the XM-8 lost out to a custom series of weapons from the Belgium firm, FN Herstal.

SCAR is actually two different rifles, the “light” version (5.56mm) and the “heavy” (7.62mm). Maximum number of weapons to be ordered will be 155,000 (84,000 standard lights, 28,000 closer-quarter combat versions of the light rifle, 12,000 light sniper types, 15,000 standard heavies, 7,000 heavy close-quarters combat conversions of the heavy rifle and 12,000 heavy sniper rifles.)

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has given all other rifle manufacturers one more chance to submit weapons to compete with the current Heckler & Koch XM-8. This is a sign that official acceptance and mass production is not far away. However, not all of the senior army, or Department of Defense, brass are willing to spend the billions of dollars it will cost to reequip the troops with the XM-8. There should be a decision by next year, however. Meanwhile, SOCOM will have SCAR, even if the army ends up not getting the XM-8.
LINK: http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2004122822.asp


.:M-F:.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top