Japan’s new rifle.

Bodenplatte

Old-Salt
Tradition still counts ... a longer length rifle will allow your squad to fix bayonets and 'form square' to see off those cavalry chaps post haste!
Tradition still counts ... a longer length rifle will allow your squad to fix bayonets and 'form square' to see off those cavalry chaps post haste! slaughter your sick and wounded in their hospital beds and on the operating table.
 
Vast majority of what they did was external things to catch up with contemporary service rifles, internally just minor improvements and generally addressing know weaknesses or points. One of their key targets overall was to bring the weight down to allow for the weight of additions and modifications. The QD barrel was never going to carry over as it was largely pointless and its only real use apart from cleaning was the Australian requirement to remove barrels to show clear during clearances.
Remove the barrel to show clear? Was that due to a design flaw?
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
Remove the barrel to show clear? Was that due to a design flaw?
No it was just an Aussie'ism not done by any of the other Steyr users. When it was brought into service some bright spark in the ADF decided to include removing the barrel as part of the unload/ clearance drill. None of the Aussies I know thought it was ever a good idea and were happy the EF-88 dispensed with the QD barrel and eliminated it. I think it just promoted wear and tear given the barrel was being removed vastly more than intended in its original design concept with the barrel locking lugs constantly being bashed into those in the receiver.
 
No it was just an Aussie'ism not done by any of the other Steyr users. When it was brought into service some bright spark in the ADF decided to include removing the barrel as part of the unload/ clearance drill. None of the Aussies I know thought it was ever a good idea and were happy the EF-88 dispensed with the QD barrel and eliminated it. I think it just promoted wear and tear given the barrel was being removed vastly more than intended in its original design concept with the barrel locking lugs constantly being bashed into those in the receiver.
I was thinking that perhaps the chamber was difficult to see through the ejection opening.
 
A bastardised development of the L64 ?
not really, Little more than an outline copy. The 4.85mm design couldn’t be stretched to use the 5.56 round.
the SA-80 prototype was nothing more than an AR-18 cut and shut into a bullpup - which RO had decided was the answer, never mind the question.
and the rest as they say is history. The British Army ended up with a poor copy and very expensive of a very good and functional cheap assault rifle, which would be improved by HK using bits of a G36, another AR-18 knock off.
even more amusingly, the SA80 was supposed to be lighter and more compact than its peers.
well, it’s as heavy as an SLR, and with its stock folded, the AR-18 is much more compact. The Army ended up with rather The worst of all worlds even without the terrible reliability issues.

 
Last edited:
...
The type 89 was based on the American AR-18 introduced in 1989. This was an improved AR-15 design, cheaper to manufacture and avoided some of the problems the AR-15 had.
...
The Howa produced Type 89, introduced in 1989, was based on the American AR-18 which was produced under license by Howa from 1969-1972. The AR-18 was a downgraded variation of the much older AR-15 platform, incorporating many simplifications for cost savings and ease of manufacture, and in hope of growing the market, in less developed countries. Apparently that production and market, initially, did not grow much beyond Japan and the UK.

The Howa recently 5.56 won a competition involving the HK 416 and SCAR-L.
Did you slip on a cut and paste or edit here?
 
not really, Little more than an outline copy. The 4.85mm design couldn’t be stretched to use the 5.56 round.
You managed to make an utterly incorrect statement with your very first "fact". If you'd actually watched the video you linked, you'd have been less likely to prove that you haven't got a f***ing clue what you're talking about.

The 4.85 design was explicitly intended to be able to convert to 5.56, because the designers knew full well that the 4.85 round might not win the NATO small-arms ammunition trial. And it didn't - the SS109 design became 5.56NATO, and the trials rifles were then converted to the new calibre.

The other reason you've demonstrated that you're utterly ignorant, is as follows:
The 4.85 round is actually longer than the 5.56 round. No stretching required. $DEITY, what a moron.
 
The Howa produced Type 89, introduced in 1989, was based on the American AR-18 which was produced under license by Howa from 1969-1972. The AR-18 was a downgraded variation of the much older AR-15 platform, incorporating many simplifications for cost savings and ease of manufacture, and in hope of growing the market, in less developed countries. Apparently that production and market, initially, did not grow much beyond Japan and the UK.



Did you slip on a cut and paste or edit here?
The AR-18 is not a variant of the AR-15. It's a completely new design. When Armalite sold the rights to the AR-15 to Colt, they sold all the patent rights with it. When they wanted to come up with a new rifle design of their own to sell, they couldn't use any unique AR-15 features. Anything that could be considered to be unique and original about the AR-15 would have been covered by patent.

So instead they came up with a new design based on well established conventional ideas, but using modern mass production manufacturing technology such as stampings rather than machining.

Complex metal stamping is a more sophisticated production technology than machining and requires a large capital investment in stamping presses and dies. However, it is better suited to mass production and in an industrialised country the stamping process can readily be outsourced to numerous specialist metal stamping shops. It is well suited to arming an advanced country with a large army in the cold war era. Any country with a large automobile industry would have the industry and experience required to build the rifle.

I've never seen the rational for saying that it was suited to less developed countries, as the manufacturing technology it was based on would have been inappropriate for them in that era.
 
The AR-18 is not a variant of the AR-15. It's a completely new design. When Armalite sold the rights to the AR-15 to Colt, they sold all the patent rights with it. When they wanted to come up with a new rifle design of their own to sell, they couldn't use any unique AR-15 features. Anything that could be considered to be unique and original about the AR-15 would have been covered by patent.

So instead they came up with a new design based on well established conventional ideas, but using modern mass production manufacturing technology such as stampings rather than machining.
No, they modified their old designs enough to not get looked at too hard. The bolt is basically the same, the carrier is modified, you'll find exactly the same barrel wrapped in very similar stamped aluminum heat shields pinned into similar fiberglass hand guards. The charging handle is moved to the front right of the carrier, but this is not much different to moving it back closer to its original spot on the top front of the carrier (which came from the even older AR10 design that the AR15 was scaled down from), instead of hanging a separate charging handle to the rear off the front of the carrier. The new charging handle could be considered an improvement over the early AR15s that lacked forward assist, and is even recommended to be used for that process, if the bolt fails to close completely on its own. However, it is not as robust as the forward assist added by Colt on request of the US Army, and it can fail to allow full engagement of the bolt. The movement and modification of the buffer spring assembly, and the implementation of a short gas piston were the only real improvements over the old ar15. As far as the deletion of the "direct gas impingement" system of the ar15, that was not really required as it came from the Swedish AG42.

Complex metal stamping is a more sophisticated production technology than machining and requires a large capital investment in stamping presses and dies. However, it is better suited to mass production and in an industrialised country the stamping process can readily be outsourced to numerous specialist metal stamping shops. It is well suited to arming an advanced country with a large army in the cold war era. Any country with a large automobile industry would have the industry and experience required to build the rifle.
Sure, that is why we DIYers didn't use bottle jacks and wood forms to bend receivers for all types of stamped guns until hydraulic presses became affordable, and then home machining tools did the same so we can just mill out 80% AR15s, M1911s, and Glocks now instead of not folding all those AKs, Stens, Uzis, and HKs like we didn't do in the previous century.

I've never seen the rational for saying that it was suited to less developed countries, as the manufacturing technology it was based on would have been inappropriate for them in that era.
Less developed countries being Japan and the UK. Did you miss the sarcasm?


The type 89 was based on the American AR-18 introduced in 1989.
^ no mistakes to find here Canuck?

This was an improved AR-15 design, cheaper to manufacture and avoided some of the problems the AR-15 had.
^ what about here?

Quite the blind spot on you. And a bit tetchy.
 
No, they modified their old designs enough to not get looked at too hard. The bolt is basically the same,
I had said:
When they wanted to come up with a new rifle design of their own to sell, they couldn't use any unique AR-15 features. Anything that could be considered to be unique and original about the AR-15 would have been covered by patent.
The AR-15 bolt design was not novel and roughly comparable bolt heads date back to the 19th century. Armalite were therefore free to use a similar bolt in the AR-18 after they sold the rights to the AR-15.

the carrier is modified,
So it's not the same then?

you'll find exactly the same barrel wrapped in very similar stamped aluminum heat shields pinned into similar fiberglass hand guards.
There was nothing particularly innovative about the hand guards, so that doesn't count as copying.

The charging handle is moved to the front right of the carrier, but this is not much different to moving it back closer to its original spot on the top front of the carrier (which came from the even older AR10 design that the AR15 was scaled down from), instead of hanging a separate charging handle to the rear off the front of the carrier. The new charging handle could be considered an improvement over the early AR15s that lacked forward assist, and is even recommended to be used for that process, if the bolt fails to close completely on its own. However, it is not as robust as the forward assist added by Colt on request of the US Army, and it can fail to allow full engagement of the bolt.
So the charging handle on the AR-18 is not the same as the AR-15 then?


The movement and modification of the buffer spring assembly, and the implementation of a short gas piston were the only real improvements over the old ar15.
So it's not the same then?

As far as the deletion of the "direct gas impingement" system of the ar15, that was not really required as it came from the Swedish AG42.
The AR-15 gas system is not a true direct impingement system and operates on a completely different principle from the true direct impingement systems on the AG42 or the MAS-49. The AR-15 gas system, which has a gas piston integrated into the bolt and bolt carrier, is one of the main defining features of that rifle. The Armalite of course did not re-use this AR-15 feature in the AR-18 as they had sold the rights to it.


Sure, that is why we DIYers didn't use bottle jacks and wood forms to bend receivers for all types of stamped guns until hydraulic presses became affordable, and then home machining tools did the same so we can just mill out 80% AR15s, M1911s, and Glocks now instead of not folding all those AKs, Stens, Uzis, and HKs like we didn't do in the previous century.
You can fettle and hand fit sheet metal to make a hand built rifle, but that isn't mass production technology. People also reproduce antique car panels using hammer and dolly but no mass production automobile manufacturer does the same. Hand building and fitting receivers isn't viable for equipping a modern army.


Less developed countries being Japan and the UK. Did you miss the sarcasm?
You stated:
The AR-18 was a downgraded variation of the much older AR-15 platform, incorporating many simplifications for cost savings and ease of manufacture, and in hope of growing the market, in less developed countries. Apparently that production and market, initially, did not grow much beyond Japan and the UK.
You may have been sarcastic about the AR-18 or derivatives of it not seeing much adoption outside of the UK or Japan, but that could not be extended to how you stated the design intent. This supposed design intent has also been widely repeated in various Internet sources and forums with serious intent.

I pointed out that mass production metal stamping is in fact a difficult technology to master, at least with the metallurgy and machines of that era, and would be much less suited to production in less developed countries of that era than a traditional machined receiver.
 

TamH70

MIA
I had said:

The AR-15 bolt design was not novel and roughly comparable bolt heads date back to the 19th century. Armalite were therefore free to use a similar bolt in the AR-18 after they sold the rights to the AR-15.


So it's not the same then?


There was nothing particularly innovative about the hand guards, so that doesn't count as copying.


So the charging handle on the AR-18 is not the same as the AR-15 then?



So it's not the same then?


The AR-15 gas system is not a true direct impingement system and operates on a completely different principle from the true direct impingement systems on the AG42 or the MAS-49. The AR-15 gas system, which has a gas piston integrated into the bolt and bolt carrier, is one of the main defining features of that rifle. The Armalite of course did not re-use this AR-15 feature in the AR-18 as they had sold the rights to it.



You can fettle and hand fit sheet metal to make a hand built rifle, but that isn't mass production technology. People also reproduce antique car panels using hammer and dolly but no mass production automobile manufacturer does the same. Hand building and fitting receivers isn't viable for equipping a modern army.




You stated:


You may have been sarcastic about the AR-18 or derivatives of it not seeing much adoption outside of the UK or Japan, but that could not be extended to how you stated the design intent. This supposed design intent has also been widely repeated in various Internet sources and forums with serious intent.

I pointed out that mass production metal stamping is in fact a difficult technology to master, at least with the metallurgy and machines of that era, and would be much less suited to production in less developed countries of that era than a traditional machined receiver.
I will agree with that lot. I will also point out that the first stamped receiver AKs were an unmitigated disaster forcing an almost immediate switching to milled receivers until they got the bugs out. Details are in these Forgotten Weapons videos.

- Type 1 AK disaster. (Stamped receiver).

- Type 2 AK interim fix. (Milled receiver).

I'm not sure that Ian's done any videos for the Type 3 and later AKM rifles.
 
not really, Little more than an outline copy. The 4.85mm design couldn’t be stretched to use the 5.56 round.
the SA-80 prototype was nothing more than an AR-18 cut and shut into a bullpup - which RO had decided was the answer, never mind the question.
and the rest as they say is history. The British Army ended up with a poor copy and very expensive of a very good and functional cheap assault rifle, which would be improved by HK using bits of a G36, another AR-18 knock off.
even more amusingly, the SA80 was supposed to be lighter and more compact than its peers.
well, it’s as heavy as an SLR, and with its stock folded, the AR-18 is much more compact. The Army ended up with rather The worst of all worlds even without the terrible reliability issues.

What you talking about Willis ? " the 4.85 couldn't be stretched to 5.56" 5.56 is shorter than 4.85 .
 
I had said:

The AR-15 bolt design was not novel and roughly comparable bolt heads date back to the 19th century. Armalite were therefore free to use a similar bolt in the AR-18 after they sold the rights to the AR-15.


So it's not the same then?


There was nothing particularly innovative about the hand guards, so that doesn't count as copying.


So the charging handle on the AR-18 is not the same as the AR-15 then?



So it's not the same then?


The AR-15 gas system is not a true direct impingement system and operates on a completely different principle from the true direct impingement systems on the AG42 or the MAS-49. The AR-15 gas system, which has a gas piston integrated into the bolt and bolt carrier, is one of the main defining features of that rifle. The Armalite of course did not re-use this AR-15 feature in the AR-18 as they had sold the rights to it.



You can fettle and hand fit sheet metal to make a hand built rifle, but that isn't mass production technology. People also reproduce antique car panels using hammer and dolly but no mass production automobile manufacturer does the same. Hand building and fitting receivers isn't viable for equipping a modern army.




You stated:


You may have been sarcastic about the AR-18 or derivatives of it not seeing much adoption outside of the UK or Japan, but that could not be extended to how you stated the design intent. This supposed design intent has also been widely repeated in various Internet sources and forums with serious intent.

I pointed out that mass production metal stamping is in fact a difficult technology to master, at least with the metallurgy and machines of that era, and would be much less suited to production in less developed countries of that era than a traditional machined receiver.
I was sarcastic throughout the entire post.

How would you feel if I said the SA80 family, and SCAR family are just fucked up (SA80) and gussied up (SCAR) AR-18s? Feel free to try to prove me wrong...
 
You'd think, with their short stubby arms, they'd have gone for a compact bullpup design.
Bullpups have gone out of fashion, AR15's are back in and are widely regarded as the apex of rifle design for the modern battlefield.

The advantages of a bullpup just don't really outweight the disadvantages to make it worth doing anymore.

I'm more interested in the abandonment of the AR18 system which 30 years ago was regarded at the improved version of the AR15 system. Lot's of people ripped off the AR18 design (including us in the L85) but now everyone is going back to the AR15 system.
 
Around 2007 NZDF decided the Steyrs were going to be upgraded to give them another 10-15 years of service life with a replacement planned sometime in the 2020's. The upgrade was about trying to bring them in line with other contemporary rifles. Key weak points was the fixed 1.5 optic sight most rifles had and the ability to mount the required ancillary kit. Wear and tear wise the rifle was pretty good.
The only people to bid on the upgrade was THALES from Aussy with an upgrade to the EF-88/F-90 spec they are currently marketing. Apparently they knew they were the only ones to bid and so wanted more to upgrade the Steyr than it would cost to replace it with anything else off the open market. With a replacement due in the not too distant future, NZDF decided to fob off an upgrade and go to an open competition for a replacement instead. Strangely enough THALES then chose not to put a bid in now that it was an open competition incl H&K, SIG, FN, and LMT.
The MARS-L from LMT is doing very well in service with a lot less issues than when the Steyr was adopted. General opinion is its a lot better being lighter and able to be adjusted or fitted to the soldier rather than the reverse with the Steyr and accuracy and reliability are better.
Never having been involved in huge defence procurement decisions (I wouldn't be here with you deadbeats and losers if I was, I would be sipping Crystal champagne out of the cracks of Russian hoors on my yacht in the Med if I had been) I have to ask how complicated would the decision making process for the NZ armed forces' rifle be?

I mean honestly wouldn't it just have been a list of four or five tried and tested rifles that have been knocking around for the past 40 years or so and just picking the cheapest? What would be so special about the needs of the NZ armed forces that no one in the US, UK, Germany, France or even South Africa or Brazil if it comes to that, would have failed to spot in extensive use over decades? It's a service rifle, there's literally millions of them in use all over the world, just pick the cheapest and buy it New Zealand, whichever one you pick will probably do just as well or just as shit as any other one.
 

Latest Threads

Top