Assault Rifle - Page 14




 
--
 
October 7th, 2005  
Wham-size
 
well sorry to spoil your day then one how think bullpop rifles aren't assualt rifle they are i think your find that that the m16 has ashort barrel by 10mm compared witht he so80 a2 and the sa80 has one of the best sight you can get on a assualt rifle the susat yes it just 4x but it was the one that set the trend for rifle to have on.
well now it has a ugl which give it the same hit power as the m203 on a bullpop rifle.
Quote:
from a source read in The Times. L85A2

In 1997 the SA80 was dropped from NATO's list of approved weapons, following which an upgrade programme was started. In 2000 Heckler & Koch, at that time owned by Royal Ordnance, were contracted to fix the problems. Two hundred thousand SA80s were remanufactured at a cost of 400 each producing the A2 variant of the weapon. By 2002 the upgraded versions were deployed in first line formations. The upgrade involved replacement of many internal parts and has greatly increased reliability. In March 2005 the L85A2 was put through its paces against the M16 M4 AK47 AN-94 and G36 rifles. It outperformed all of them in accuracy (even without the SUSATs) and reload speed (physically changing magazine on the move and static), and all but the AK47 in reliability on multiple terrain, weather and climatic senarios. This showed up both the M16 and the new M4 as dangerously out of touch. Weight is left as the SA80's only real drawback and so the carbine variant has also been redeveloped with a 20-round magazine, and will enter service as a self-defence weapon for British Army tank crews during 2005.

Many specialist UK formations, such as the SAS, Royal Marine Special Boat Service, Royal Marine Brigade Recce Group (Formerly Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre), use the Diemaco C-7 or C-8 (Canadian licence-built copies of the M4 carbine) over the SA80 due to its lower weight, despite having only two-thirds the effective range of the SA80. This is because of their different combat requirements.

The Heckler and Koch upgrades are a matter of some debate; the UK Ministry of Defence could have ordered 100,000 G36 rifles for the same cost.

In a further Heckler and Koch upgrade a number of L85A2 rifles are now being fitted with the HK AG36 40 mm grenade launcher in a configuration similar to the M203.
this should so that this rilfe is on of the best out there that why i would carry a sa 80 a2.
October 7th, 2005  
CanadianCombat
 
 
C8 would be my choice. its the Canadian version of the American M4
October 8th, 2005  
Trevor
 
C7, actually, but close enough , and it's closer to the M-16 than the M-4.
--
October 8th, 2005  
Obvious
 
 
what bullet would you like your gun to use? 5.56 Nato, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 7.62 Nato, or other bullets?

Oh yah and what is the meaning of having a 5.56 assault rifle with a longer barrel when most combats usually come at a max of 100m. With a 5.56 bullet, it is very hard to hit targets beyond 150m and it takes lots of training and there is also fact that the 5.56 loses a lot of power 150m. I would personally have a carbine. Anything 200m and beyond should belong to a DMR like the m14 or a sniper rifle.
October 8th, 2005  
Jin
 
The terminal ballistic properties of 5.56 and 7.62 are very different, at all ranges. For an assault rifle for close combat I would choose C8 5.56 with Aimpoint and surefire. Perhaps a nseas laser to paint targets.

If I should choose a weapon for over all use, it would be a HK G3 7.62, this is a well tested system, works under almost any condition, easy maintenace and is suprisingly accurate.
October 8th, 2005  
c/Commander
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor
C7, actually, but close enough , and it's closer to the M-16 than the M-4.
The C7 is the M-16, the C8 is the M-4. Not sure what models exactly, but your forces do use both.
October 8th, 2005  
Wham-size
 
what do you mean
Quote:
it is very hard to hit targets beyond 150m
i used assualt rilfe on combat range were you run and shot and it not hard
it easy to hit some thing at 300 or 400 m first shot i now this as i have done with the sa 80 a2 many time.
so no you can hit thing and take them down with a 5.56 round with easy.
October 9th, 2005  
Jin
 
Quote:
so no you can hit thing and take them down with a 5.56 round with easy.

Hitting your target is one thing, and I agree that you can hit a target up to a couple of hundres meters with an assault rifle (done it myself many times), but a hit dosen't automaticly mean that you take the target down with a 5.56
October 9th, 2005  
Wham-size
 
so yuor tell me you could get hit by a 5.56 and still run towards me how is fire more round your way that just silly. 5.56 was design to wound a man cos it take two other to take him of the field were a man dead that one man out 5.56 make 3 man not on the field given you the hign mean you win.
October 9th, 2005  
Jin
 
I am taugth that most of the conentional weapons and munitions are intended for wounding and not killing. And no one will disagree with the fact that it's more effective to wound and not kill the enemy.

My point was that the terminal ballistic properties, how much energy and how much fragmentation / damage the 5.56 inflicts on the human body is nowhere near the 7.62 at any range.

A hit is still a hit, but if you get hit by a 5.56 the chances of survival and the propabilety that you can continue to resist further enemy presence is much higer than a hit made by 7.62

The 5.56 is selected by NATO allies for many reasons, size, weigth, muzzle velocety, ligther arms, etc.

Btw: We hunt elk/moose with .308 / 7,62 (not full metal jacket)