Japan’s new rifle.

gafkiwi

War Hero
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.
Because you generally get what you pay for. Also part of the process of the trial is to understand wear/tear rates and the associated costs with maintain that rifle time in service, so a cheap rifle up front could cost a lot more over time.
Doctrine will also have an effect with some countries will be happy with a rifle capable of hitting a barn door (or non compliant citizens) at 100m in the hands of a conscript when other will require effective individual fire out to 500-600m.
Nearly all the nations you mentioned have either just have or in the process of replacing their service rifles or have had to make a lot of modifications to their design to keep them current.
 
Last edited:
What you talking about Willis ? " the 4.85 couldn't be stretched to 5.56" 5.56 is shorter than 4.85 .
‘stretched’ as in the gas system needed to be completely redesigned to use the 5.56 cartridge, ended up with a de facto new rifle. The designers had thought it was just a matter of changing the barrel - but there again, they were the same designers with zero experience of stamping And pressing who thought sheet steel parts could be made crude and poorly toleranced as you like and the Gun would work fine.
 
Because you generally get what you pay for. Also part of the process of the trial is to understand wear/tear rates and the associated costs with maintain that rifle time in service, so a cheap rifle up front could cost a lot more over time.
Doctrine will also have an effect with some countries will be happy with a rifle capable of hitting a barn door (or non compliant citizens) at 100m in the hands of a conscript when other will require effective individual fire out to 500-600m.
Nearly all the nations you mentioned have either just have or in the process of replacing their service rifles or have had to make a lot of modifications to their design to keep them current.
Fine, then phone the blokes in the countries whose doctrine most closely matches your own (and in the case of NZ that wouldn't be hard to work out) and ask to borrow copies of their assessments, no doubt carried out at vast expense over decades, and spend an afternoon reading them and pick the second cheapest option.

Come on, it's not rocket science, the perfect tool doesn't exist, you pick one off the shelf that looks a bit handy and which has been used by millions of other people and go with it, no doubt people will gripe and complain whichever you choose but that's life. Despite all the rivet counters endlessly debating the qualities of different rifles on YouTube the fact remains that no modern war was ever won or lost on the specifics and minutiae of the firing mechanism or design of the service rifles of the infantrymen involved.

It's like running a courier service in a medium sized town, you need to buy six vans. Do you set up a committee and do assessments for years of all the available vehicles taking into consideration all the different streets and road surfaces you are likely to encounter around your town and the capacities of your special drivers. Or do you pop out into the street, have a look at what DHL or FedEx are driving and ring up the various showrooms and ask for their best quote? I know which I would do.
 
The only bullpup I'd ever consider would be the Austeyr F88. If it can survive in service with the Ockers, it must be pretty damned good. And even in its original Mark 1 AUG form, the thing was ludicrously strong.
Had one for 3 years - hated it.
 
Because you generally get what you pay for. Also part of the process of the trial is to understand wear/tear rates and the associated costs with maintain that rifle time in service, so a cheap rifle up front could cost a lot more over time.
Doctrine will also have an effect with some countries will be happy with a rifle capable of hitting a barn door (or non compliant citizens) at 100m in the hands of a conscript when other will require effective individual fire out to 500-600m.
Nearly all the nations you mentioned have either just have or in the process of replacing their service rifles or have had to make a lot of modifications to their design to keep them current.
when the SA80 was proving to be utter pooh, the British still had in service large numbers of M16’s bought in the 60’s and still doing just fine in ice, mud, desert and jungle.
The cost of turning the L85A1 into the fairly reliable A2 actually exceeded the cost of buying everyone a new M4/M16. Back @ 2005, it was estimated the Culmulative cost if all the assorted modifications to the ‘cheap’ SA80 had brought the actual cost up to £2,900 a rifle, 15 years on, ever more money has been thrown at it. It would have been cheaper to buy every soldier a hand fitted Purdy rifle.

you can buy the very excellent Diemaco C7/C8 for under £1,000 a pop, sure enough, thats exactly what we are now doing for everyone who needs a functional reliable rifle that doesn’t weigh a tonne.

The L85 is not noticibly more accurate than an M16, it’s heavier than the SLR, and it’s a totally unergonomic bulky abortion.

The Johnny Seven OMA - now with 3 sights, 3 grips, And every operating control still in the illogical and totally wrong place.

EF30FB50-C1A6-426B-B427-D9DD6B5820A7.jpeg
 
when the SA80 was proving to be utter pooh, the British still had in service large numbers of M16’s bought in the 60’s and still doing just fine in ice, mud, desert and jungle.
The cost of turning the L85A1 into the fairly reliable A2 actually exceeded the cost of buying everyone a new M4/M16. Back @ 2005, it was estimated the Culmulative cost if all the assorted modifications to the ‘cheap’ SA80 had brought the actual cost up to £2,900 a rifle, 15 years on, ever more money has been thrown at it. It would have been cheaper to buy every soldier a hand fitted Purdy rifle.

you can buy the very excellent Diemaco C7/C8 for under £1,000 a pop, sure enough, thats exactly what we are now doing for everyone who needs a functional reliable rifle that doesn’t weigh a tonne.

The L85 is not noticibly more accurate than an M16, it’s heavier than the SLR, and it’s a totally unergonomic bulky abortion.

The Johnny Seven OMA - now with 3 sights, 3 grips, And every operating control still in the illogical and totally wrong place.

View attachment 477789
Have you ever used an SA80? Or any weapon at all?

Or do you just look at the pictures?

PS. I already know the answer.
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
Fine, then phone the blokes in the countries whose doctrine most closely matches your own (and in the case of NZ that wouldn't be hard to work out) and ask to borrow copies of their assessments, no doubt carried out at vast expense over decades, and spend an afternoon reading them and pick the second cheapest option.

Come on, it's not rocket science, the perfect tool doesn't exist, you pick one off the shelf that looks a bit handy and which has been used by millions of other people and go with it, no doubt people will gripe and complain whichever you choose but that's life. Despite all the rivet counters endlessly debating the qualities of different rifles on YouTube the fact remains that no modern war was ever won or lost on the specifics and minutiae of the firing mechanism or design of the service rifles of the infantrymen involved.

It's like running you need to buy six vans. Do you set up a committee and do assessments for years of all the available vehicles taking into consideration all the different streets and road surfaces you are likely to encounter around your town and the capacities of your special drivers. Or do you pop out into the street, have a look at what DHL or FedEx are driving and ring up the various showrooms and ask for their best quote? I know which I would do.
As you mention It isn't rocket science. What would make it even easier is if one was able sit back and observe (or even take part in) the weapons of other better resourced nations and then take that information and lessons learnt and make some informed decisions in what you require in a service rifle. You could then go to open market to see who is able or willing to meet the requirement. You test what shows up and select what has the best results and value for money.

What an amazingly simple and some what familiar concept here in NZ.

Of the many 'proven' rifles currently in-service with other western nations who didn't bid for the project? Thales EF-88 Steyr, Colt M4, or the ST Kinetics SAR 21. If you want to go way down the rabbit hole you could add the FAMAS and L85 theoretically to the list. Now that eliminates nearly all the current service rifles used by other 'similar' nations.

If I was running a courier service in a medium sized town needing 6 vans, I wouldn't use what DHL or FedEx operate as a true bench mark. As a courier service in a medium I wouldn't have the buying power of a multinational company with associated massive support network. I would look at other courier services in medium sized towns and see what they used (may or may not be the same) and pick what best suits so (like with service rifles) I don't hopefully end up with a small van fleet that has to compete with big company fleets of the same van for purchase and after sales support.
 
As you mention It isn't rocket science. What would make it even easier is if one was able sit back and observe (or even take part in) the weapons of other better resourced nations and then take that information and lessons learnt and make some informed decisions in what you require in a service rifle. You could then go to open market to see who is able or willing to meet the requirement. You test what shows up and select what has the best results and value for money.

What an amazingly simple and some what familiar concept here in NZ.

Of the many 'proven' rifles currently in-service with other western nations who didn't bid for the project? Thales EF-88 Steyr, Colt M4, or the ST Kinetics SAR 21. If you want to go way down the rabbit hole you could add the FAMAS and L85 theoretically to the list. Now that eliminates nearly all the current service rifles used by other 'similar' nations.

If I was running a courier service in a medium sized town needing 6 vans, I wouldn't use what DHL or FedEx operate as a true bench mark. As a courier service in a medium I wouldn't have the buying power of a multinational company with associated massive support network. I would look at other courier services in medium sized towns and see what they used (may or may not be the same) and pick what best suits so (like with service rifles) I don't hopefully end up with a small van fleet that has to compete with big company fleets of the same van for purchase and after sales support.
And whatever rifle is chosen after years of endless discussion, research and lots of junkets for the senior officers making the decision, the lads who have to use it will say it was a load of shite, and the idiots who chose it wouldn't know what the bloke on the ground really needs, it's too fancy, too cheap and nasty, too long, too short, too powerful, not powerful enough, far too heavy, too insubstantial, we shoulda gone with what the Aussies/Yanks/Brits/Frogs/Krauts/Russians went with, they know a thing or two about these things.

And like I say it won't make a blind bit of difference one way or t'other as whatever is chosen will be as good or as bad as the ones that weren't chosen and the massed ranks of the New Zealand armed forces will have a perfectly decent piece of kit that will probably never be used anyway.
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
And like I say it won't make a blind bit of difference one way or t'other as whatever is chosen will be as good or as bad as the ones that weren't chosen and the massed ranks of the New Zealand armed forces will have a perfectly decent piece of kit that will probably never be used anyway.
Nice way to wind it all up after opinion takes a break from fact.
 
Nice way to wind it all up after opinion takes a break from fact.
As I say, if you could point me to a conflict between two developed military powers that was won or lost based on the choice of infantryman's rifle on either side I would be fascinated to read about it.
 

longtimeout

War Hero
As I say, if you could point me to a conflict between two developed military powers that was won or lost based on the choice of infantryman's rifle on either side I would be fascinated to read about it.
I'm trying to work out whether you've just lost an argument against yourself, or won...
 
As I say, if you could point me to a conflict between two developed military powers that was won or lost based on the choice of infantryman's rifle on either side I would be fascinated to read about it.
2nd Boer war where the 5 round magazine Mauser with smokeless rounds against the 10 round magazine lee met ford I+II then lee enfield showed that good accurate individual skills and drills from a mounted farmer could initially defeat a regular infantry column. The only edge the British had, the boers were prone to french leave and hadn't quite got the principle of fixed defence instead relying on their mounted ability to shoot then ride away. Buying modern German Mausers French siege guns and of course Krupps guns meant the Boers could mount a defence when they chose to with the addition of framing fences for corralling herds they also hindered can and inf who had to stop at a known position skylined.

Russo-Japanese war, accurate fire power from a defensive entrenched position, showed that tactics needed refining. Both the Japanese and Tsars armies suffered huge casualties from lessons learnt or ignored from recent wars. barbed wired with maxim guns could prevent advancing lines of infantry and cavalry. Section fire and movement had been learnt in the 19th century, introducing machine guns showed that coordinated supporting artillery was needed to win.


 
Last edited:
2nd Boer war where the 5 round magazine Mauser with smokeless rounds against the 10 round magazine lee met ford I+II then lee enfield showed that good accurate individual skills and drills from a mounted farmer could initially defeat a regular infantry column. The only edge the British had, the boers were prone to french leave and hadn't quite got the principle of fixed defence instead relying on their mounted ability to shoot then ride away. Buying modern German Mausers French siege guns and of course Krupps guns meant the Boers could mount a defence when they chose to with the addition of framing fences for corralling herds they also hindered can and inf who had to stop at a known position skylined.

Russo-Japanese war, accurate fire power from a defensive entrenched position, showed that tactics needed refining. Both the Japanese and Tsars armies suffered huge casualties from lessons learnt or ignored from recent wars. barbed wired with maxim guns could prevent advancing lines of infantry and cavalry. Section fire and movement had been learnt in the 19th century, introducing machine guns showed that coordinated supporting artillery was needed to win.


You really think the choice of rifle was the deciding factor in either war?

That's a bit of a stretch.

Hang on, didn't the British win the Boer War?
 
I'm trying to work out whether you've just lost an argument against yourself, or won...
My point is that pretty much any modern rifle will do in the hands of competent infantrymen, the finer technical details or the individual design of one rifle against another are really not that important in the modern world, and are really only of concern to blokes in wraparound sunglasses on YouTube videos.

So did I win or lose my argument, you tell me?
 
You really think the choice of rifle was the deciding factor in either war?

That's a bit of a stretch.

Hang on, didn't the British win the Boer War?
no rifle no means of dropping your opponent, regardless of kill or wounded, so yes a rifle in the hands of a trained person was a deciding factor.

Have a read up on both wars i mentioned, while the Boers did surrender, it was a costly guerrilla war that wasnt showing signs of stopping, slowing down yet but stopping no. Mounted infantry unimpeded were able to cover ground faster, telephony and the telegraph were used for sighting reports, artillery was instrumental in destroying their wagons and animals. It took a rifle aimed naturally at the target without undue pressure ensuring correct sight alignment to kill or maim the enemy.

Plus modern mauser rifles made to order for the Boers, while the British fell back on previous round model, due to the latest wearing out the barrel grooves.
 
no rifle no means of dropping your opponent, regardless of kill or wounded, so yes a rifle in the hands of a trained person was a deciding factor.

Have a read up on both wars i mentioned, while the Boers did surrender, it was a costly guerrilla war that wasnt showing signs of stopping, slowing down yet but stopping no. Mounted infantry unimpeded were able to cover ground faster, telephony and the telegraph were used for sighting reports, artillery was instrumental in destroying their wagons and animals. It took a rifle aimed naturally at the target without undue pressure ensuring correct sight alignment to kill or maim the enemy.

Plus modern mauser rifles made to order for the Boers, while the British fell back on previous round model, due to the latest wearing out the barrel grooves.
No I get it, my point is that no war was won or lost on the basis of the type of rifle in either side's hands (and in fairness I did say developed countries, the Boer farmers, superb guerrillas though they were didn't constitute a developed nation).

The Germans had the magnificent Mauser, probably everyone's first choice of a bolt action rifle, so superb was it that the Lee Enfield Mk III was a quickly made British attempt at copying it (and a magnificent weapon it was too), and yet the Germans lost the two big wars in which they used it, mostly against Russians armed with Tsarist era rifles.

There are people today who will drone on for hours about the relative merits of the British L1A1 SLR against the original FN FAL. In the Falklands both were used against each other in an almost laboratory setting, was the choice of rifle the deciding factor? No, the choice of boots almost was, but not the rifle.

Until not so long ago the most mass-produced and popular infantryman's rifle in the world was a thing clobbered together by a Russian tank sergeant in his spare time, that was as ugly as sin in its engineering and probably couldn't hit a barn door, but oddly enough tens of millions of soldiers around the world got along well enough with it.

And then we hear New Zealand apparently needs to minutely examine all the variants of the current range of superbly produced, technically advanced modern service rifles to find just the perfect one that suits its needs to an nth degree. Really?
 
when the SA80 was proving to be utter pooh, the British still had in service large numbers of M16’s bought in the 60’s and still doing just fine in ice, mud, desert and jungle.
The cost of turning the L85A1 into the fairly reliable A2 actually exceeded the cost of buying everyone a new M4/M16. Back @ 2005, it was estimated the Culmulative cost if all the assorted modifications to the ‘cheap’ SA80 had brought the actual cost up to £2,900 a rifle, 15 years on, ever more money has been thrown at it. It would have been cheaper to buy every soldier a hand fitted Purdy rifle.

you can buy the very excellent Diemaco C7/C8 for under £1,000 a pop, sure enough, thats exactly what we are now doing for everyone who needs a functional reliable rifle that doesn’t weigh a tonne.

The L85 is not noticibly more accurate than an M16, it’s heavier than the SLR, and it’s a totally unergonomic bulky abortion.

The Johnny Seven OMA - now with 3 sights, 3 grips, And every operating control still in the illogical and totally wrong place.

View attachment 477789
More importantly ...if the huge bull pup monstrosity is so good why do the Special types not use it , even those who think they are special have been using AR type platforms.
 
No I get it, my point is that no war was won or lost on the basis of the type of rifle in either side's hands (and in fairness I did say developed countries, the Boer farmers, superb guerrillas though they were didn't constitute a developed nation).

The Germans had the magnificent Mauser, probably everyone's first choice of a bolt action rifle, so superb was it that the Lee Enfield Mk III was a quickly made British attempt at copying it (and a magnificent weapon it was too), and yet the Germans lost the two big wars in which they used it, mostly against Russians armed with Tsarist era rifles.

There are people today who will drone on for hours about the relative merits of the British L1A1 SLR against the original FN FAL. In the Falklands both were used against each other in an almost laboratory setting, was the choice of rifle the deciding factor? No, the choice of boots almost was, but not the rifle.

Until not so long ago the most mass-produced and popular infantryman's rifle in the world was a thing clobbered together by a Russian tank sergeant in his spare time, that was as ugly as sin in its engineering and probably couldn't hit a barn door, but oddly enough tens of millions of soldiers around the world got along well enough with it.

And then we hear New Zealand apparently needs to minutely examine all the variants of the current range of superbly produced, technically advanced modern service rifles to find just the perfect one that suits its needs to an nth degree. Really?
Britain won the war yet lost the country in the long run, Transvaal and Orange Free State both annexed in 1900. Post war reparations dished out Boers dominated South Africa up until Nelson took over..By that time the world had also changed.

Both Boer republics did have access to at the time modern technology and importantly international trade be it machinery for mining made by Krupp Creusot and Mauser

ref the falklands i mentioned the russo japanese war as it closed parcelled the boer war, to examine the falklands is to compare brandywine creek to the rhine crossing in 45

Out of interest ever fired a AK variant? or the m16/m4? accuracy comes down to skills drills and not closing both eyes at the same time

am no gun geek i do know that the boer farmers inflicted more wounded than killed though.
 
‘stretched’ as in the gas system needed to be completely redesigned
Made oi larf. Nice try, trigger, "I was proved to be talking sh!te, I'll try a feeble justification". Given the gas system is exactly two parts (gas plug, gas cylinder) what exactly do you think they did for the rest of the morning after "Hmmm, better make that hole a fraction bigger/smaller to cope with slightly more/less gas"?

when the SA80 was proving to be utter pooh, the British still had in service large numbers of M16’s bought in the 60’s and still doing just fine in ice, mud, desert and jungle.
No, we didn't. We had a few, worn out, occasionally used weapons reserved for specific operational duties; as mentioned in this thread on Borneo.

The cost of turning the L85A1 into the fairly reliable A2 actually exceeded the cost of buying everyone a new M4/M16. Back @ 2005, it was estimated the Culmulative cost (wibble)
It's the sure sign of a snake-oil salesman to compare apples to oranges.

The cost of re-equipping with a less-reliable weapon (as proven by Ex NERINE) isn't just "how much you pay off the shelf". It's also the re-equipment (all of the shelves in armouries, weapon clips in wagons), the replacement of an entire logistics chain, and the complete retraining of all involved.

Soldiers don't come for free, and it's only weasels that don't value wasted time.

Converting from L1A1 to L85A1 wasn't a "read the pamphlet, check-zero, job done". Proper training of an operational firer on a completely new weapon is rather different from the efforts of an incompetent hobbyist such as yourself. Getting as far as successful passes at the Weapon Handling Test is just the start, no matter what the lower-third skillies think; you've then got to take everyone through the full set of firing practices, gallery range to field firing (sorry, team live-firing tactical training) before you can regard them as "converted" - that's a couple of weeks' work for the unit, minimum.

The L85 is not noticibly more accurate than an M16, it’s heavier than the SLR, and it’s a totally unergonomic bulky abortion.
Remind us why the scratch firers making up the British Army Combat Shooting Team do ever so well whenever they head across to the USA to take part in Ex UNCLE SAM? Especially when you consider that the opposing teams include the full-time firers of the US Army Marksmanship Unit, with their specialist armourers?

Now, either us British chaps, with our tea, pluck, and form, are just naturally better-suited to this marksmanship stuff; or firers are roughly as good at the top wherever they come from, and the L85 gives its users an advantage. Hmmm, what to think.
 

Latest Threads

Top