Modern Assault Rifles

I have been interested in assault rifles, however never had the chance to fire one.




G3

I will be in boot camp in two months. Turkish army is mostly equipped with G3s and AKs. If I am unlucky enough there is a possibility of serving in the "east" where I will have the chance to fire my G3 at guerillas, hope I won't have to.


M16

I don't know much about M16 but I read that in Vietnam some American soldiers replaced their M16s with AKs. Of course there is now M16A4 most of the problem should have been overcome.


AK 47

As far as I know AK is reliable, cheap and easy to maintain, while G3 very fragile and unstable while automatic use. That is 1-0 for guerillas.


I only know the names of FAMAS and SA80 (L85).

SA 80 (Her Majesty's Rifle)

FAMAS (Looks Cool)


Have any of you people used these rifles for military or civil purposes? (assault rifle for civil purpose?)

What are your thoughts about these rifles?

What other kinds of assault rifles do modern armies use currently?

[ 09. October 2006, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: kerem ]

 

I have fired the M16 (in several variants) quite a bit over the years. I have also used the Styer AUG on one occasion (the unit I was with at the time had an Aussie EOD Det attached for a while). I also have had the opportunity to fire the M 14 on a few occasions.
My opinion is that the 5.56mm round is garbage. Its too light and has no penetrating power. A cinder block house will stop the rounds. As for the M16, I have never really liked it. Uncomfortable to shoot, don't like the sight setup, just ugh... The Styer was kind of neat. The 4x scope on it was useful as long as it was daytime. Too small for comfortable shooting though (I like a longer full stock and am not thrilled with the pistol grip configurations.).
I will say that none of the ones I fired had any real problem with jamming. I have fired hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds through an M 16 and have very occasionally had a case hang up on eject. Very easy to clear (turn the gun on its side rack once with the T handle while observing the breech and you are good to go once more).
Personally, the M14 is a better battle weapon even if lugging that beast around wears on you a bit. The 7.62 NATO round has good knock down and penetrating power unlike that wimpy little hot .22 cartridge. Basically, modern infantry are carrying what is essentially a slightly more powerful M 1 carbine. That gun had little stopping power also but was useful for secruity and personal protection purposes. That in my opinion is all the 5.56 cartridge is good for. For a firefight take the 7.62 round every time.
Of the Soviet stuff I have only fired the SKS. Never saw any of the military ones that were accurate enough to bother with aiming in particular. Most are horribly inaccurate and make a very large group even when properly sighted in. The SKS occasionally also jams on eject but is easily cleared. Given a choice I would not want either it or an AK given the poor accuracy.

 

XM8 (5.56 mm Nato)

M16, M4 and M249 were going to be replaced with XM8 but then it was cancelled.


XM8 is a modular weapon. Caliber and barrel can be changed.

Versions of XM8

All this effort and money spent in Research&Development went down the drain?

 

T.A. I heard that the aim of using 5.56mm round is to wound the enemy. It is claimed that a wounded enemy soldier would cause more trouble to your enemy than a dead one. Because at least two men needed to carry a wounded man. It did not sound very rational to me.

 

I would not say the 5.56 was chosen for that reason but it is an entirely valid military principle that enemy with incapacitating wounds are a far better result than straightforward kills.
A dead man is a dead man, he can be dealt with later, he has no immediate needs. Wounded men have an impact much deeper in the purely logistical sense. Each tying up a long strand of resources in men (a dozen? can't remember the figures) and materiel to evacuate them from the battlefield, give treatment etc. Wounded men cause greater attrition than the dead. Grim; but accepted within military thinking for hundreds of years.
Cheers
Adam.

 

That might have happened on occasion, but would have been quite dangerous. An American firing an AK might have drawn friendly fire, since it sounds different from the M16.

JT

 

Nikonov AN-94 "Abakan" assault rifle

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm

This is the new Russian assault rifle that will be replacing the Ak-47. Let me know what you guys think.

 

A brief history of how the M 16 came to be the US service arm:

It was the USAF that first adopted the M16 for use by their security troops as a replacement for the M1 carbine. In the mid 60's the USAF bought something like 50,000 M16s for this purpose. Some of these were the first ones used in Vietnam about 18 months ahead of any issue to the US Army.
The Army decided to adopt the M16 based on the success of the USAF with the weapon. But, the Army ordinance department insisted on a couple of changes in design to meet their peculiar needs. One of these was that the powder used be switched to the standard Army "ball" powder. This propellant had a slight advantage in power for the number of grains used but left considerably more residue in the barrel and other components than the powder the USAF used which was basically equivalent to civilian granular powders.
It was this change that caused most of the problems with the M16 in early service. Since the USAF had been using the rifle for over 2 years in quantity with few problems the Army put the M16 in service with the ordinance changes but with little testing. The result was all the jamming and other problems with the gun in early Army service in Vietnam.
As far as the round and gun go, the US Army predicated their choice on weight and rounds carried. A soldier could carry only so much weight. If the rifle he carried was lighter and the round carried was lighter he could carry more rounds or other equipment as a result. On paper the 5.56 round with its tendency to tumble on impact was supposed to have equal stopping power to the 7.62 NATO round. So, on paper a soldier with an M16 could carry more ammunition of equal effectiveness to that of the M14. The kill an opponet versus wound them is just a spicious an argument. At the tactical level wounded are evacuated as possible not in preference to terminating the firefight. That is if the enemy is firing on you and someone on your side gets wounded it is not going to immediately require others in your unit to stop fighting and help the wounded man. The reality is more complex as I previously noted.

 

That gun looks scary
But the author claims that the rifle costs more than AK and so the maintenance is expensive. Two rounds burst mode is something new to me, but sounds useful. But the author also mentioned that the rifle probably won't be used in the Russian Army in a near future due to financial issues.

That rifle might share the same destiny with the XM8 rife I mentioned above. But probably it won't because it is looks like a promising realistic design. If only Russia had some higher budget to buy new weapons, we could also see variety of new jet fighters. I admire Russian aviation industry.

 

"Best Nazi is a incapacitated Nazi" (An Army Ranger, 1944 France)
I am confused I wouldn't think about that in the battlefield, just shoot to stay alive. Let the Generals worry about that.

 

Yea Karem its the only assualt rifle on the planet today that can fire two rounds burst.


Oh and im sure that if Russia sells enough natural resources it will get the money for it.

 

A friend of mine has a Romanian Ak-47 that he bought at Dunham's, a local sporting goods store, for $199.00. It shot flawlessly and was suprisingly accurate. Loved it.

Later

 

Kerem

As far as I know AK is reliable, cheap and easy to maintain, while G3 very fragile and unstable while automatic use. That is 1-0 for guerillas.

What???

I am an instructor in the HV and for the WWS. I have been shooting the AG3 for 12 years. Fragile is NOT the word I'd mark it with.

While firing an AK or an AG3 at full auto, you wont hit much at ranges over 30 meters. The recoil is too strong for it. Firing short burst is better. The G36, M16 and Steyr are much easier to control on full auto because they fire a less powerful round.

The use of full auto is genrally discarded in favour for the double-tap. With the double tap you hit the target twice at relatively long ranges. In QCB (close quartes battle) the double tap is mandatory. Full auto in an area where there is civillians is not a winning recipy.

While the AG3 is getting old it still is a good weapon. Optic sights, cheeck plate and bipod is possible to fit on it. For me it is the calibre that weighs most heavy. I never forget lectures from N.Ireland vetrans speaking of the horror of fighting it out with IRA shooting through their cover, whilst the SA 80 didn't. Speaking of weight TA is dead on the money. More and more people are argueing that you can carry more ammo for your M16/G36 than your AG3. True, but vets back from Afganistan and Iraq discarded their M16 for the AG3. Why? The power.

Accurancy on the AG3 and AK47 is less than modern designs. The weapons can be dismanteled in half, in time the bolts will slacken and cause the gun to loose precicion. My personal weapon is made in 1971 and when shooting prone it will hit the size of a head at 200 meters.

So the weapon is somewhat crude and oldfashioned. The upside is that the AG3 like the AK47 is extremely reliable. I have shot it at temperatures down to -38C at the border, and my mate shoot at +50C in Iraq. No misfire. In an average year I fire around 2500 rounds with the AG3 and roughly the same with the MP5 machine pistol. I have never had a misfire yet on the AG3 and on the MP I had three two years ago. The ammo was the reason and Raufoss (munition factory) had to take back the whole lot.

 

Thanks Jaeger, I've been reading the comments from Turks who used G3 in the service, the power and the accuracy of the rifle is praised, however there are complaints about jamming. That should be pericular to Turkish version of G3.

 

kerem

(congrats with Hakans brilliant performance yesterday)

I wonder if your lads arn't talking about the Turkish licence produced MG3? It needs volumes of oil to work properly.

In the Royal Norwegian Army it is standard to clean the weapons and then put oil on them. Something that caused British sergeants to give Norwegian voulenteers hell during WW2. In the Royal Army the weapons should be cleaned and kept dry. I don't know what it is like in the Turkish army though.

 

Jaeger

(Thanks, this week was great for Turkey, we won both our matches, our king came back, but after the match he said he might leave the national team and a Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk won the Nobel Prize for the first time.)

I haven't heard much about MG3, but I know it is being exported from Turkey to Norway, seems like it is giving you guys hell of a time.

I guess I will find out soon whether the guns are kept dry or not in the Turkish Army.

Regards.

 

the G-3 is known for its reliability overtime and accuracy (and of course its power, since it fires the huge 7.62 NATO round).

I fired the FAMAS during my military service (target shooting).

It's a bull pup rifle, like the British one, which means the feeding is behind the trigger and chamber.

It's very light, it's easy and fast to clean : you only have 2 or 3 "bolts" (I don't know the word in english, basicaly it's more or less the same kind of thing than to cock a hand grenade if you see what I mean : it

requires no tool other than your hands) to pull off and it breaks open, giving access to moving parts, and especialy the ones you'll check first in a hurry if you jam (chamber/bolt and feed/eject).

It has a selector allowing you to choose beween single, auto or 3 rounds burst (which is a very cool feature because autofire is at best a waste of ammo in most of the cases), but believe me it makes the trigger mecanism something like a swiss watch : don't expect to check or fix it on your own.

another good feature is the built in bipod, allowing really accurate aiming when crouched.

some fun features :

- the strange thing you can see protuding below the rear end of the buttstock is a remote part of the trigger mecanism (yes, it sounds strange) which can be easily removed either to replace it, but it is at first intended to neutralize the weapon (once removed, this part, made of hard plastic, can easily be destroyed).

- as it's a bullpup rifle, the chamber is right at the place you put your head when aiming, buy using the break method above, you configure it to
operate either for left or right handed user. If you got this wrong and fire, it will most probably eject the case right into your cheek !

my general opinion :

it's a very light and compact gun, thanks to the bull pup design. Ideal rifle in small spaces like a nightclub or a grocery lol.

More seriously, during trainings I praised its compactness most of all when...I crawled. You spend a lot of time crawling when training + the
fact you try to crouch to get a better aim whenvever you can, and it's really a pain in the ass to do so with a long gun as an AK or a M16, the FAMAS is 15-20 cm less in size !

The balance is weird (bull pup again) when you wield it at waist or chest height. If you fire in auto in this case, even if the recoil ogf this gun is amazingly weak, it will have a tendancy to nose up because of the balance.

about firing.

the optics are simple : the forward sight is a hole through the "handle" than has a kind of cap allowing for 3 sizes of hole. you just line up the hole with the end of the barrel (classic apperture + blade system). It's adjustable of course.

This gun is very quiet, more than the M-16 while using the same ammo, and has a very tiny slight puny recoil, you really have very good results in early training when firing 3 round bursts (if you fire with the butt braced against your shoulder of course) because of this weak recoil.

In 1 round shooting, it's very precise, you can easily hit a man sized target at 200 m while crouched within a few hours practice.

It has a range up to 300-400m, but I think 300m is the max range when you are well trained, 400m is maybe possible if you're a sniper but I'd say this would be a lucky shot anyway.

So it's more accurate than the AK up to 200m and less accurate than the M16 from 200m on. It's much less accurate than the G-3, from what I know.

In auto or 3 round bursts, of course it's more accurate than the AK and a little more than the M16.

The big drawback (but this is personal) is for auto fire when the gun is held at waist (John Wayne style) or at chest height : the gun is short and the big "handle" on the top makes it hard to accurately point at target. + the weird balance tends to make the gun nose up on auto.

Up to 15 meters it's ok, but between 15 and 50 meters, when you could expect - with some luck - to land the 1st, 2nd or 3rd bullet into your target, I think I'd feel more confortable with an AK or M16.

 

Thanks for your comments about the Famas chocapic.

Damn it! What the hell is wrong with the Turkish made G3 Well probably because the average age of the rifles being used by the army is about 30 years.
Does it matter if the gun is properly maintained?

 

they have to be properly maintained of course, but there's another important factor : all automatic weapons wear out fast if they are used intensely overtime, which is the case for the guns that are used to train the newcomers.

I won't trust AT ALL a 30 years old G-3 that has been used to train people every day or every week.

 

Chocapic

Who is maintaining his weapon better.
A recruit under the ever watchful eye of his gunny, or the old salt left to himself?

As part of the rutine we have MBK (materiel preparedness control)where all kit is under tight scruitiny. Any wear and tear is reported and corrected. My G-3 is made in 1972 and is still going strong. As a Lt. in the Jaegers the G-3 takes a lot of beating, but I have yet to replace any components.