Time for a New rifle/Small arms system

Libyan

New Member
Immagine if you would, Pakistan deciding to replace its g3's

However pakistan will need something cost effective.

Pakistan further will need something with high reliability,and the ability to do multi missions off one basic design.

Immagine if pakistan was to use the ak-47 as the basis of a new rifle and instead of firing standard 7.62/39 it used the same cartridge but with a .220 bullet (.220 russian is used by precision sport shooters and is incredibly accurate its based off the same cartrige as 7.62/39)

so here you have the high reliability and easy to aquire and manufacture AK in the Following variants

carbine (with shorter barell and a folding stock)
Rifle (Full barell and Folding stock for light weight)
Support Rifle(Heavy barell and bipod full stock for aupported automatic fire)
Sniper/Marksmans rifle (Heavy Barell and bipod)


Next you will need a Heavier rifle and a True General Purpose machine gun


I suggest attempting to convert the Mg.03 to 7.62/54 russian rimmed as in interm solution

The choice of .338 by most of the worlds special ops for long range engagements would be perfect for both a precision sniper rifle and heavy tripod based machine gun. Again I believe the old robust mg.03 could be modified to fire .338 LM

In closing we must remember that the mg.3 is a weapon which originated in world war two , it has been put into several dozen calibres from 7.92/57, 7.62/51 7.62/54 .
 

umair

Peace Enforcer
Pakistan is already in the process of replacing it's HK-G3's with the Steyr-Aug(license produced in Pakistan at POF Wah)
 

umair

Peace Enforcer
As I said my knowledge of infantry weapon specs is sparse.
Ask me anything about aircraft though :D
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The G3 is about 45 years old. It was the std assault weapon for the Germans for a number of years, and is now relegated to the reserves. Its a pretty popular gun and was sold to over 45 countries (IIRC)

Std 7.62 NATO round.

The Stey is a completely diff weapon, lighter, 5.56 and is a Bullpup, so it's an ideal urban assault, tight area weapon. It's also easier to manage if the operater is in a vehicle.

Aussie Gunner has been a AuSteyr (Australian modified Steyr) user, so he should be able to give you an idea of how he thinks it handles

I've used FN-SLR's/(FAL's), different again, std NATO 7.62, long barrel, not the best for urban assault, but urban assault wasn't really a design consideration for it.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The Steyr is a good rifle.I don't know if it's "the best", but it serves the Australian Army (and quite a few others including, New Zealand, Malaysia, Austria, Ireland etc) very well. The weapon is extremely accurate and is easy to shoot. It is sufficiently robust for most conditions and is very reliable if maintained correctly. The weapon is nice and compact for urban and jungle environments and sufficiently accurate (thanks to it's optical sight and long barrell, a benefit of it's bullpup configuration), for long range shooting (desert or grassland type environments). The weapon has a 30 round mag that is opaque to allow a quick assessment of the amount of ammunition remaining in the magazine. The weapon is capable of attaching a full range of external devices (including a bayonet, 40mm Grenade Launcher, night/laser aiming devices, different optical or night vision/thermal imaging sights, torches or basically anything else you might consider hanging off a rifle...) The weapon is available in Carbine (9mm or 5.56mm versions), assault rifle or light support weapon variants. The Australian Army chose this weapon after extensive testing against the M16 A2 and considered the Steyr to be superior. I have employed a number of other rifles in my service including FN-FAL (SLR's), M16 A1/2's and am familiar with AK-47, AK-74 and Chines Type 56 weapons. I consider the Steyr to be superior to any of these weapons based on my experience. I know Special forces generally prefer the M4 series of weapons, but I have heard they've recently complained about the weapons range and accuracy. Something no-one has ever questioned of the Steyr. ONe more thing. There was an "urban myth" going around when I was in the ADF, "that no-one had ever survived after being shot with a Steyr." Certainly no-one I ever knew who had actually fired the weapon in anger had only wounded the person he was shooting at... The Somalian's had a term for the Steyr afer 1 RAR served in Somalia in 1993. It escapes me at the moment but meant, "the gun that never misses"... They learned that the hard way unfortunately...
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Yep! my personal weapon is M4. I find it quite easy to handle and very user friendly. The problem is, beyond 200 meters, the shot begin to spread. i retain 92% accuracy at 150m and 87 at 200. but at 250 it drop to 43. quite a drop. I've use Steyr and find it very conveniant for long range engagement. But it is quite hard to handle. maybe it's only me because i rarely use this weapon. by the way, the weapons looks futuristic. I don't agree that the weapon is lighter than M16. Steyr is slightly heavier than M16. furthermore, many Malaysian Army veterans who use M16 before complaining about the handling of this weapons in the tropical jungle.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I only ever used M16A1 versions, not later versions which may account for the weight issue. I never had any problem handling a Steyr and my shooting was always reasonable (I was never selected to do the Sniper course, even though I spent a fair amount of time in a Recon platoon, put it that way... Australian Army snipers are employed within the "sniper cell", in the Recon platoon.) I used the Steyr for years in jungle environments (Tully in far North Queensland mainly) and never had any problems with it. It does require some fairly careful cleaning, but otherwise it's fine...
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
I only ever used M16A1 versions, not later versions which may account for the weight issue. I never had any problem handling a Steyr and my shooting was always reasonable (I was never selected to do the Sniper course, even though I spent a fair amount of time in a Recon platoon, put it that way... Australian Army snipers are employed within the "sniper cell", in the Recon platoon.) I used the Steyr for years in jungle environments (Tully in far North Queensland mainly) and never had any problems with it. It does require some fairly careful cleaning, but otherwise it's fine...
Hey! i'm a recon platoon leader once. nice to meet the same breed.

Compare to the M16, i have to struggle a bit to cock and chamber a bullet. the gas regulator always stuck to something when operating in the thick bush. Of course the scope is really helping in improving long range aiming. somethig that M16 amiss.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I was a section commander, (Corporal), I was never really interested in Commissioned rank, though the opportunity was offered to me before I discharged. I never intended to make a career out of the military. I had different goals. As an aside a mate of mine who joined at the same time I did (who took up the option of Officer Training, whilst being a full time NCO) is now a Major in the Australian Army... He is currently attached to a training school in the Army, but will soon be a commander of an Infantry company and has served 2 tours in East Timor, has undertaken a stint in Special Forces after successfully completing the entry requirements (for 4 RAR Commando) and has served overseas as an observer on a number of UN operations. I got out at the right time didn't I...
 

dabrownguy

New Member
I would recomend the Type 95 rifle because it uses 5.8 rounds so it would be useless to the likily enemy the IA. IA has taken the 5.56 rounds already and the best choice is Type 95 because the 7.62 rounds are inaccurate these days. The problem with Type 95 is that it is bad in Kargil style operations and its not as accurate as 5.56.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
because the 7.62 rounds are inaccurate these days
Thats just a little wrong.. ;)

There are a number of things to consider with a round:

propellant mix
propellant type
platform (eg rifle, carbine type)
length of barrel
range to target
combat environment

I'd rather be shot at by a 5.56 or a 5.68 at 500m than by someone armed with a 7.62 SLR.

Bigger hole going in and a far bigger hole going out

7.62's fell out of normal load favour due to:

less rounds clould be carried per trooper due to size and weight differences
The US made a new standard, so all prev 7.62 users fell in to line

otherwise, there are a number of people who would definitely want to go into with the larger cal weapon. Thats why in a squad one guy will babysit the minimi 7.62 SMG, it's better at suppressing fire and better at stopping something from a distance.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
The problem with the Kalashnikov 7.62 is the propellant is not enough to push a bullet to a level of 5.56. I've try SLR before. You should see the size of the bullets. It's longer than the 7.62 round use by AK families and contain more propellant powder.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
In actual fact, the 5.56mm NATO SS109 round is considerably more lethal than the old NATO Standard 7.62x51mm round. Studies showed that 7.62 NATO rounds often went straight through a soldier leaving him capable of fighting on, though no doubt in great pain. 5.56mm rounds have a flatter trajectory and have a tendency to "break up" after hitting a human being, thus creating additional wounds. 7.62mm rounds often went straight through and out the other side!!! I think dabrownguy might be referring to 7.62mm Russian rounds (7.62x38mm, standard AK-47 round), which is an obsolete round and is not used much even by the Russians anymore. They use 5.45mm rounds in their frontline assault rifles now. The emphasis these days is to try and wound a soldier rather than kill him outright. the strain placed on medical services tends to drain resources (and hopefully) an ability to fight, quicker than dead soldiers. The 7.62mm rounds are no less accurate than they ever were. What would change? The main reason for the SLR's acccuracy is the length of it's barrel. A 5.56mm rifle with a similar length would be just as accurate, if not more so. This is also applies to the velocity of the projectile. (5.56mm NATO rounds have a much greater velocity than 7.62mm rounds, generally). The length of the barrel has an effect on the rifling on the inside of the barrel, the higher the velocity, the greater the "spin" imparted to the projectile and hence the greater the accuracy. The Minimi is chambered for 5.56mm, the same round as NATO standard assault rifles. When firing a single round from a minimi you can obtain great accuracy (particularly Australian versions which are fitted with optical scopes) at long range, (the accurate range of a minimi is around 800m's) possibly as much or more so than an SLR. I think perhaps you are confusing the Minimi with the MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
I think perhaps you are confusing the Minimi with the MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG?
Geez, not my day, you're right again. ;) HTF I mixed a minimi with a 7.62 is beyond me...

2 stuff ups in 1 day... I should take a panadol and lie down for a while.... ;)
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
SLR i think has an effective range of 1000m if i'm not mistaken. The break up effect in 5.56 you mention i think is base on what materials use for the bullets. I recall something about the type of blunt soft bullets being banned sometimes ago. I saw picture of people being wounded by M16 5.56 round and by 7.62 SLR round. The latter is a mess. The man lost quarter of his skull.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
That may well be in an indirect role. I'd like to see someone fire aimed shots at 1000m's with an SLR. Even 7.62mm Sniper rifles need a lot of assistance at that range, ie: 12x optical scopes, a spotter with a high powered scope(usually 100x magnification) and specialist shooting techniques. Machine guns have no problem firing at this range and beyond, however they generally pour fire onto the target (it becomes in effect a "beaten zone"a rough area where the rounds will land) until it's destroyed, they can't fire with a high level of accuracy though.
 
Top