Japan’s new rifle.

Any idea why NZ would select direct gas impingement rather than the gas piston way of cycling the action ?
LMT do such a weapon, so am curious ?
 
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.
Another one who hasn't got a clue. Remind us again what the well-dressed Israeli infantryman is carrying these days?

If it's the apex of rifle design, why are the Americans about to replace it? Oh yes, because it's unreliable compared to its peers, and now even the American exceptionalists have been forced to notice it.


 
‘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.
Stop making shit up please.
 

MoleBath

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If considering a new rifle with 2 or 3 decades of use will 5.56mm be the right choice. Particularly with advances in light weight ballistic armour ??
 
Another one who hasn't got a clue. Remind us again what the well-dressed Israeli infantryman is carrying these days?

If it's the apex of rifle design, why are the Americans about to replace it? Oh yes, because it's unreliable compared to its peers, and now even the American exceptionalists have been forced to notice it.


Claiming the AR15 is unreliable in comparison or in any respect is nonsense, its competitors only achieve marginally better statistics.
 
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.
Do you mean the Lee Enfield No.1 MkIII? How is that a copy of the Mauser?
Perhaps you mean the Lee Enfield No.3 MkI (which derived out of the P13 which matches the claim more closely)
 
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.



Until not so long ago the most mass-produced and popular infantryman's rifle in the world was a thing clobbe.ogether 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 itamett by
You can't have a Lee Enfield with a Mauser action as the Lee stands for the James Paris Lee action, the rifle made at Enfield based on a Mauser action was the P14.


Mikhail Kalashnikov didn't design the AK in his spare time nor was he an ametier working alone, its just a myth.
 
Claiming the AR15 is unreliable in comparison or in any respect is nonsense, its competitors only achieve marginally better statistics.
Really? Exercise NERINE suggested different results when comparing L85A2 with AR15: "A2 achieved a 95% success rate, above operational requirement of 90%, and its nearest rival of popular choice achieved only 47%"

Now let's see whether post-operational reporting agrees with you. Consider that some L85A2-equipped BGs that went into Basra on TELIC 1 in 2003 were claiming that they just didn't have any stoppages; the US military's December 2006 study “Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat,” reported the following about the same operation (link, feel free to argue with them):
M4 Carbine Lessons Learned
  • 34% of Soldiers reported that their M4’s handguards rattle and become excessively hot when firing.
  • 15% reported that they had troubles zeroing the M68 Reflex Sight.
  • 35% added barber brushes and 24% added dental picks to their cleaning kits.
  • Soldiers reported the following malfunctions:
    • 20% reported double feeding
    • 15% reported feeding jams
    • 13% reported that feeding problems were due to magazines.
  • 89% reported confidence in the weapon.
  • 20% were dissatisfied with its ease of maintenance.
  • Problems reported locking magazines in and some soldiers had to chamber a round in order to lock the magazine.
  • Soldiers asked for a weapon with a larger round, “So it will drop a man with one shot.”
How about the December 2007 Congressionally-requested reliability study on the M4 (link)?

"The test evaluated the M-4 against the HK-416, the HK-XM8, and the FNH SCAR, with each weapon firing 6,000 rounds under sandstorm conditions. Officials reportedly evaluated 10 each of the four weapons, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model resulting in the following: XM-8, 127 stoppages; FNH SCAR, 226 stoppages; HK-416, 233 stoppages; and the M-4, 882 stoppages"
 
Last edited:
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.
But when choosing anything which will be in inventory and troops will need to use for many years, it’s wise to choose well and that involves testing and evaluating.

In the 1890s the Spaniards chose the Mauser, whilst the US chose the Krag. Both were modern bolt action rifles. Come the Spanish American war, whilst the US won that one, they realised the Spaniards had the better rifle and the Krag became one of the shortest lived rifles in use by the US, probably at great expense after purchasing, tooling up, and then having to develop a new rifle after a few years.
 
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.
I think the point that some people are missing is that pretty much all of the rifles which New Zealand evaluated were considered to be "good enough" by the time it got down to the final evaluation. If they weren't, then New Zealand wouldn't waste time and money looking at them.

When it does get to the final evaluation, then cost is going to be a big, if not the biggest factor left to deal with. And as you've said, New Zealand aren't going to get the same deal from the big suppliers as the US or France did. They just aren't buying enough rifles.

And the "deal" will have to include more than just "what's the sticker price on each rifle?" You also have to look at warranty repair and how that is handled, and how is the supplier rated in terms of parts and service response time in far off New Zealand.

Replacing a rifle can take years, but usually because you have years because you know when you want to start receiving delivery of new rifles and so start the process well ahead of time.

It's worth noting that the winning bidder in New Zealand was LMT, who are a small company more generally known for supplying small numbers of specialised rifles rather than equipping entire armies. According to Wikipedia, the New Zealand contract was for NZD $59 million for 9040 rifles. They were no doubt a lot more hungry for the sort of small contract which New Zealand could offer than larger companies whose salesmen had their eyes set on bigger deals with bigger countries.
 
I think the point that some people are missing is that pretty much all of the rifles which New Zealand evaluated were considered to be "good enough" by the time it got down to the final evaluation. If they weren't, then New Zealand wouldn't waste time and money looking at them.

When it does get to the final evaluation, then cost is going to be a big, if not the biggest factor left to deal with. And as you've said, New Zealand aren't going to get the same deal from the big suppliers as the US or France did. They just aren't buying enough rifles.

And the "deal" will have to include more than just "what's the sticker price on each rifle?" You also have to look at warranty repair and how that is handled, and how is the supplier rated in terms of parts and service response time in far off New Zealand.

Replacing a rifle can take years, but usually because you have years because you know when you want to start receiving delivery of new rifles and so start the process well ahead of time.

It's worth noting that the winning bidder in New Zealand was LMT, who are a small company more generally known for supplying small numbers of specialised rifles rather than equipping entire armies. According to Wikipedia, the New Zealand contract was for NZD $59 million for 9040 rifles. They were no doubt a lot more hungry for the sort of small contract which New Zealand could offer than larger companies whose salesmen had their eyes set on bigger deals with bigger countries.
The point you are making which is a good one, was alluded to when the ‘which van to pick for starting a delivery business’ was used as an example. DHL may get a good deal on a supplier because it’s a huge company but the one man and a dog company may choose a different van because of the better deal offered by another who works with smaller orders.

We’ve got the same with the practice iWork in. Some property developers are just not interested in 6, 10 or 20 house schemes and are geared for 50 - 100 plus developments and for smaller schemes their unit rate is higher. The better deals for smaller schemes for our clients are sometimes with the smaller developers and as you say this will likely be the same for supplying widgets, rifles and kit for armies. The choice of what you go for is not only down to the specification, but the price you can get it for.
 
Really? Exercise NERINE suggested different results when comparing L85A2 with AR15: "A2 achieved a 95% success rate, above operational requirement of 90%, and its nearest rival of popular choice achieved only 47%"

Now let's see whether post-operational reporting agrees with you. Consider that some L85A2-equipped BGs that went into Basra on TELIC 1 in 2003 were claiming that they just didn't have any stoppages; the US military's December 2006 study “Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat,” reported the following about the same operation (link, feel free to argue with them):


How about the December 2007 Congressionally-requested reliability study on the M4 (link)?

"The test evaluated the M-4 against the HK-416, the HK-XM8, and the FNH SCAR, with each weapon firing 6,000 rounds under sandstorm conditions. Officials reportedly evaluated 10 each of the four weapons, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model resulting in the following: XM-8, 127 stoppages; FNH SCAR, 226 stoppages; HK-416, 233 stoppages; and the M-4, 882 stoppages"
I can't find anywhere tat states "nearest rival of popular choice achieved only 47%" was an AR15.


i
f you had actually read the report on the M4 you cited you would have seen the results were disputed by multiple sources and are not fact.
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
Any idea why NZ would select direct gas impingement rather than the gas piston way of cycling the action ?
LMT do such a weapon, so am curious ?
NZ didn't have a requirement either way on the operating system. Of the 4 AR based rifles trialed 2 were external piston being H&K 416 and SIG 516 and the 2 DI were the LMT and the Colt Canada IUR. All the others (FN, CZ, Berretta, and Steyr) had piston based system.
As I understand it, the piston based AR became a requirement by US SOF in the early 2000's because of reliability issues with shorter barreled M4's when suppressed or changing between that and un-suppressed and automatic fire. Technology and design has apparently moved on to where this isn't an issue anymore for short barreled AR's.
The Estonians placed a piston requirement on their 5.56 and 7.62mm rifle project but the basis of that was about how and where the rifle vents its excess gas. They ended up with the same LMT MARS-L but with the piston system. Of note it only takes a bout 2 minutes to convert a MARS-L either way between DI and Piston with a barrel and bolt group swap.
 
Last edited:
I can't find anywhere tat states "nearest rival of popular choice achieved only 47%" was an AR15.
You won't (outside the report), but it was the M16A2.

Even more embarrassing, when they used the revised operational cleaning policy on the L85A1 that they brought along as a control group, it also outperformed the M16.

If you had actually read the report on the M4 you cited you would have seen the results were disputed by multiple sources and are not fact.
Which one would that be - the 2007 test where the commercial manufacturer's excuse (not as if they're going to accept it) was "but but but, the staff were unfamiliar with the three-round trigger group" and adjusted the numbers so that it only had twice the number of stoppages of the XM-8? Or the 2001 report where USSOCOM declared that it was unfit for purpose, and they'd be buying some of those nice HK-416 rifles?

I notice you don't dispute the 2006 post-operational report where 30% of users reported stoppages in combat.

Here's another summary of the disagreements, and the excuses made by the sole-source contractor.

Face it, the AR-15 design has been in service for sixty years now, and will be replaced by the US Army once they've picked a replacement. Anyone who claims that it's the apex of rifle design is delusional.
 
Last edited:

Nomad1382

War Hero
the US Army keeps running tests and while the M4 isn't the overall winner, the winning entry has not been found to be significantly better to warrant the cost of replacing the M4. Converting an M4 to a 416 is really just a matter of replacing the upper but it still hasn't been found to so much better to spend the big bucks to switch. Yes, the SOF units have but they are replacing far fewer weapons than the rest of the Army. A lot of the feed issues have been traced to crap magazines and they've been redesigned several times...which is why individuals/units purchase MagPul P-Mags to use instead.
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
You won't (outside the report), but it was the M16A2.

Even more embarrassing, when they used the revised operational cleaning policy on the L85A1 that they brought along as a control group, it also outperformed the M16.



Which one would that be - the 2007 test where the commercial manufacturer's excuse (not as if they're going to accept it) was "but but but, the staff were unfamiliar with the three-round trigger group" and adjusted the numbers so that it only had twice the number of stoppages of the XM-8? Or the 2001 report where USSOCOM declared that it was unfit for purpose, and they'd be buying some of those nice HK-416 rifles?

I notice you don't dispute the 2006 post-operational report where 30% of users reported stoppages in combat.

Here's another summary of the disagreements, and the excuses made by the sole-source contractor.

Face it, the AR-15 design has been in service for sixty years now, and will be replaced by the US Army once they've picked a replacement. Anyone who claims that it's the apex of rifle design is delusional.
I do find it strange that anyone is surprised by the results. The M16A2 had as far back as the late 80's when both NZ and Australia tested them against the Steyr found them to be less reliable and not as well made. Discussions at the time were that the US approach when adopting the A2 from the A1 was "Near enough is good enough" so long as they were US made and was an easy change. Colt already had a developing reputation of indifference to development and quality control due to the monopoly they had in the supply to the US.
In 2007 what was being evaluated? On one hand you have the L85A2 which had gone through a lot of development and refinement from the L-85A1 which itself required a lot of fixes to become fully serviceable. On the other you have the M-16A2 which was largely unchanged from the early 80's. Its pretty clear it was a case comparing apples with oranges and the winner would have been obvious before the evaluation started.
 
But when choosing anything which will be in inventory and troops will need to use for many years, it’s wise to choose well and that involves testing and evaluating.

In the 1890s the Spaniards chose the Mauser, whilst the US chose the Krag. Both were modern bolt action rifles. Come the Spanish American war, whilst the US won that one, they realised the Spaniards had the better rifle and the Krag became one of the shortest lived rifles in use by the US, probably at great expense after purchasing, tooling up, and then having to develop a new rifle after a few years.
Again, very interesting, thank you.

And again, the choice of rifle made no difference to the outcome of the war, the side with the crap rifle still won.

(Which leads us to a totally irrelevant and side issue, did any side armed with Mausers ever win a war?)
 
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.
The Boers didn't dominate South Africa until the National Party took power in 1948 and introduced Apartheid
 

Nomad1382

War Hero
I don't know about the Australian and New Zealand M-16's tested but manufacture of the US Mil M-16's shifted to FN in the late 80's and stayed there until the move to the M-4. Colt held the license on the M-4 until recently and I think FN has out-bid them again on the making of current variations. I know all of our "new" M-4A1's are re-manufactured A2 lowers. You can see where M-16A2 has been overstamped with M-4A1 and "Burst" has been ground off and restamped "Auto".
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
I don't know about the Australian and New Zealand M-16's tested but manufacture of the US Mil M-16's shifted to FN in the late 80's and stayed there until the move to the M-4. Colt held the license on the M-4 until recently and I think FN has out-bid them again on the making of current variations. I know all of our "new" M-4A1's are re-manufactured A2 lowers. You can see where M-16A2 has been overstamped with M-4A1 and "Burst" has been ground off and restamped "Auto".
As I understand it in the late 80's all foreign military purchases had to be approved and serviced by Colt. Part of the licencing agreement they had with other companies like Diemaco required Colt or US Govt approval before they sold on to anyone else. Now its more of a lucky dip as the US Govt shares the love around a lot to keep some of the companies in business. One contract for a US forces buy maybe FN and the next someone else. Who ever missed out will get thrown a bone like a contract for a FMF recipient. Edit: Funny thing being a lot of these companies sub contract out parts or manufacturing so the name on the receiver maybe the only thing Colt or FN about it.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top