StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/4 ... 481265.stm

My favorite quote:

"Four years later, when troops were under fire from rebel forces in Sierra Leone, the guns [SA-80s] jammed again.

Luckily, other soldiers had M16s to cover them."

Redmanfms on www.ar15.com said:

"Actually, they haven't developed a decent small arm since the 1853 Enfield three-band rifle musket. The Martini-Henry was a foreign design (I believe Dutch and Norwegian). The SMLE was designed by an American. The Webley is a cheap knock-off of a S&W. The Bren was designed by a Czech. The Hi-Power was French/Belgian. The L1A1 was Belgian.

The British simply need to learn that they really suck at making anything that has moving parts."

MKSheppard wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/4 ... 481265.stm

My favorite quote:

"Four years later, when troops were under fire from rebel forces in Sierra Leone, the guns [SA-80s] jammed again.

Luckily, other soldiers had M16s to cover them."

Redmanfms on www.ar15.com said:

"Actually, they haven't developed a decent small arm since the 1853 Enfield three-band rifle musket. The Martini-Henry was a foreign design (I believe Dutch and Norwegian). The SMLE was designed by an American. The Webley is a cheap knock-off of a S&W. The Bren was designed by a Czech. The Hi-Power was French/Belgian. The L1A1 was Belgian.

The British simply need to learn that they really suck at making anything that has moving parts."

Just dont mention their cars <shudder > just thinking about Brit cars makes my wallet hurt.

Bwahahaha. That's funny.

Though they do make some good cars.

neoolong wrote:Bwahahaha. That's funny.

Though they do make some good cars.

They have had a few good designs, about 5 from memory, but even they hosed oil and had head difficulties,suffered from poor assembly, and attracted rust like a cheap hooker. Trust me, I own a Brit car, one of the better ones, you dont want to buy British unless you have a deeppocket.
For reliable, economical motoring, buy from the Japanese.

Ugh

SA-80

the only modern assault rifle that exceeds it tolerences, everywhere. The damm thing is only good as a club. The test versions were made by professional gunsmiths. The rest are basically made by unskilled laborours to save money. As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

NecronLord wrote:As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

Hahahah seriously?!

EDIT: found it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 ... 13,00.html

Vympel wrote:

NecronLord wrote:As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

Hahahah seriously?!

EDIT: found it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 ... 13,00.html

great isn't it?

Just finished reading the article ... the question is- is it fixed?

Prolly not ...

As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

I wondered what happen to him, Where he today anyway(*Hopes for the Ak-107 the so called Super-rifle that cost less than 300$ yet strong enough that Cars could run over it no problem, also waterproof)

MKSheppard wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/4 ... 481265.stm

My favorite quote:

"Four years later, when troops were under fire from rebel forces in Sierra Leone, the guns [SA-80s] jammed again.

Luckily, other soldiers had M16s to cover them."

Redmanfms on www.ar15.com said:

"Actually, they haven't developed a decent small arm since the 1853 Enfield three-band rifle musket. The Martini-Henry was a foreign design (I believe Dutch and Norwegian). The SMLE was designed by an American. The Webley is a cheap knock-off of a S&W. The Bren was designed by a Czech. The Hi-Power was French/Belgian. The L1A1 was Belgian.

The British simply need to learn that they really suck at making anything that has moving parts."

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I'm so shocked)

Mr Bean wrote:

As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

I wondered what happen to him, Where he today anyway(*Hopes for the Ak-107 the so called Super-rifle that cost less than 300$ yet strong enough that Cars could run over it no problem, also waterproof)

He's alive and kicking. The AK-107 wasn't accepted for service however- his son made it apparently. Gennady Nikonov's rifle, the AN-94, is the new Russian Army assault rifle. It's SWEET.

There's actually an AK-74 video where they videotape an AK-74M (black version of the AK-74 with a few nice little refinements) getting RUN OVER BY A CAR and a guy picks it up and fires it IMMEDIATELY after. It also gets thrown off a 3-4 story building (you watch it fall) and it also gets immediately picked up and fired.

Mr Bean wrote:

As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

I wondered what happen to him, Where he today anyway(*Hopes for the Ak-107 the so called Super-rifle that cost less than 300$ yet strong enough that Cars could run over it no problem, also waterproof)

I'd buy one. And I live in a country with 'gun control'

There's actually an AK-74 video where they videotape an AK-74M (black version of the AK-74 with a few nice little refinements) getting RUN OVER BY A CAR and a guy picks it up and fires it IMMEDIATELY after. It also gets thrown off a 3-4 story building (you watch it fall) and it also gets immediately picked up and fired.

Woiuld this be on the internet?

NecronLord wrote:Ugh

SA-80

the only modern assault rifle that exceeds it tolerences, everywhere. The damm thing is only good as a club. The test versions were made by professional gunsmiths. The rest are basically made by unskilled laborours to save money. As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

SA-80 refers to both the L85 rifle and the L86 Light support weapon. Both are utter shit, worse then the original M16 after it had been thrown in the mud by most reports. Its no good as a club, dropping will either result in it emptying the magazine on full auto even if the safety is on or the stock cracking apart making it useable. I hate to think what smashing it into someone will do.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

NecronLord wrote:Ugh

SA-80

the only modern assault rifle that exceeds it tolerences, everywhere. The damm thing is only good as a club. The test versions were made by professional gunsmiths. The rest are basically made by unskilled laborours to save money. As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

SA-80 refers to both the L85 rifle and the L86 Light support weapon. Both are utter shit, worse then the original M16 after it had been thrown in the mud by most reports. Its no good as a club, dropping will either result in it emptying the magazine on full auto even if the safety is on or the stock cracking apart making it useable. I hate to think what smashing it into someone will do.

good point

Vympel wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:

As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

I wondered what happen to him, Where he today anyway(*Hopes for the Ak-107 the so called Super-rifle that cost less than 300$ yet strong enough that Cars could run over it no problem, also waterproof)

He's alive and kicking. The AK-107 wasn't accepted for service however- his son made it apparently. Gennady Nikonov's rifle, the AN-94, is the new Russian Army assault rifle. It's SWEET.

There's actually an AK-74 video where they videotape an AK-74M (black version of the AK-74 with a few nice little refinements) getting RUN OVER BY A CAR and a guy picks it up and fires it IMMEDIATELY after. It also gets thrown off a 3-4 story building (you watch it fall) and it also gets immediately picked up and fired.

What surface was the gun on when they ran it over? The base line M16 was run over by an M60 tank after all, but was laid on the grass. AN-94 requires too much mantiance for me to like it. I want FN's new entry for OICW..

"The British simply need to learn that they really suck at making anything that has moving parts."

Wouldn't there then be a vast list of British weapons that were mediocre, and all needed to be bailed out by foreign designs? Mitigating circumstances seem to gover most of the weapons on the list; wartime pressures and the quality of design for the SMLE and Bren, the fact that Britain had staked everything on their 4.85mm cartridge (and the associated bullpup rifle) winning the NATO standard round competition in the '50's and had to adopt an existing weapon in the FN FAL to catch up when 5.56mm became standard. And wasn't the Hi-Power designed by an American anyway?
I mean, by this reasoning the US wheeled armoured vehicle industry is shitty, because the Marines chose a Swiss/Canadian vehicle instead of a homegrown product.

RadiO wrote:

"The British simply need to learn that they really suck at making anything that has moving parts."

Wouldn't there then be a vast list of British weapons that were mediocre, and all needed to be bailed out by foreign designs? Mitigating circumstances seem to gover most of the weapons on the list; wartime pressures and the quality of design for the SMLE and Bren, the fact that Britain had staked everything on their 4.85mm cartridge (and the associated bullpup rifle) winning the NATO standard round competition in the '50's and had to adopt an existing weapon in the FN FAL to catch up when 5.56mm became standard. And wasn't the Hi-Power designed by an American anyway?
I mean, by this reasoning the US wheeled armoured vehicle industry is shitty, because the Marines chose a Swiss/Canadian vehicle instead of a homegrown product.

The UK actually produces shitty designs in terms of firearms. The US just didn't try wheeled armor vehicles for a long time. Thats not the same thing.

Well actually the LAV-150 series sold very well a while back and was a good design, but not something most militaries needed.

FAL is 7.62mm BTW, not 5.56.

Vympel wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:

As Mikhail Kalasnikov said when he was shown the thing after the Cold War. "You must have some very clever soldiers."

I wondered what happen to him, Where he today anyway(*Hopes for the Ak-107 the so called Super-rifle that cost less than 300$ yet strong enough that Cars could run over it no problem, also waterproof)

He's alive and kicking. The AK-107 wasn't accepted for service however- his son made it apparently. Gennady Nikonov's rifle, the AN-94, is the new Russian Army assault rifle. It's SWEET.

There's actually an AK-74 video where they videotape an AK-74M (black version of the AK-74 with a few nice little refinements) getting RUN OVER BY A CAR and a guy picks it up and fires it IMMEDIATELY after. It also gets thrown off a 3-4 story building (you watch it fall) and it also gets immediately picked up and fired.

Yes and the REASON why you can do this is that the toelrances for most of those weapons are so loose that even alrge amounts of reshaping and dirt won't cause those tolerances to be exceeded. However the problem with this is that the effective range is less than the range on Civil War era rifles.

The AK-47 and 74 will not reliably engage any target more than about 200-250m away and that is in perfect working condition, in normal repair about 100-150m is your betting range. The -16A2 for all its need to be cleaned (and there are field expedient shortcuts, trust me I've fired it for consectutive days multiple magazines without ever even punching the bore) will engage easily in the 300-500m range depending upon the skill of the shooter.

Sea Skimmer- the AK-74M was on a normal everyday road (not dirt).

CmdrWilkens wrote:. However the problem with this is that the effective range is less than the range on Civil War era rifles.

Ok ..... riiiiiggghhhhttttt.

The AK-47 and 74 will not reliably engage any target more than about 200-250m away and that is in perfect working condition, in normal repair about 100-150m is your betting range. The -16A2 for all its need to be cleaned (and there are field expedient shortcuts, trust me I've fired it for consectutive days multiple magazines without ever even punching the bore) will engage easily in the 300-500m range depending upon the skill of the shooter.

Bullshit- there IS a difference between a 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm round. The AK-74 is "accurate" out to 500m, not 300m like the AK-47/AKM- this is from US Army FMs now. The M-16 *IS* a more accurate rifle. Whether soldiers can take advantage of this accuracy in combat (500m engagement of infantry in a war zone is pure fantasy- combat mostly occurs at under 300) is another question entirely.

CmdrWilkens wrote:The AK-47 and 74 will not reliably engage any target more than about 200-250m away and that is in perfect working condition, in normal repair about 100-150m is your betting range. The -16A2 for all its need to be cleaned (and there are field expedient shortcuts, trust me I've fired it for consectutive days multiple magazines without ever even punching the bore) will engage easily in the 300-500m range depending upon the skill of the shooter.

But is the extra effective range of the M16 family really needed in most types of battlefields? Certainly 500m effective range comes in handy when fighting in desert or in mountain terrain where the average LOS is quite long. However in forest or urban areas LOS will be 100m or less anyway: there's not much need to have a rifle that can shoot further than its shooter can see.

Enlightenment wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:The AK-47 and 74 will not reliably engage any target more than about 200-250m away and that is in perfect working condition, in normal repair about 100-150m is your betting range. The -16A2 for all its need to be cleaned (and there are field expedient shortcuts, trust me I've fired it for consectutive days multiple magazines without ever even punching the bore) will engage easily in the 300-500m range depending upon the skill of the shooter.

But is the extra effective range of the M16 family really needed in most types of battlefields? Certainly 500m effective range comes in handy when fighting in desert or in mountain terrain where the average LOS is quite long. However in forest or urban areas LOS will be 100m or less anyway: there's not much need to have a rifle that can shoot further than its shooter can see.

Tighter groupings improve body armor penetration, so there is a real benefit at shorter ranges. And the proliferation of such armor is really ramping up.

Urban area's actually often require long range fire, being up in a building can let you see and shoot quite far, and the demand for a lot of suppressing fire is high enough that you will find infantrymen doing it and not just crew served weapons.

Enlightenment wrote: But is the extra effective range of the M16 family really needed in most types of battlefields? Certainly 500m effective range comes in handy when fighting in desert or in mountain terrain where the average LOS is quite long. However in forest or urban areas LOS will be 100m or less anyway: there's not much need to have a rifle that can shoot further than its shooter can see.

I'm skeptical at the lreasoning behind touting accuracy on the firing range (in perfect, controlled conditions of course where you have ample time to do everything you need to do) as the supreme arbiter of whether a rifle is a good combat rifle or not. I praised the make of the AK-74M- and as usual someone takes it as a slur against the M16. A lot of people HATE the M16- you don't hear to many complaints about the AK. I've heard lots of bad things about it- even the latest marks- but Sea Skimmer told me a few months ago that most of it is exaggerated. I'll defer judgment- I'm no expert.

Sea Skimmer wrote: The UK actually produces shitty designs in terms of firearms.

Like what? The SA80's a complete laughing stock, but what other poor weapons has Britain produced? The one that comes springing instantly to mind was the Lanchester, which was both a copy of a foreign SMG and actually dangerous to the user, but at least had the excuse of being a rushed stop-gap weapon. But that's only one.

The US just didn't try wheeled armor vehicles for a long time. Thats not the same thing.

Well actually the LAV-150 series sold very well a while back and was a good design, but not something most militaries needed.

Cadillac Gage were producing wheeled AFVs for twenty years before the LAV requirement arose. They'd been sold all over the world, and actively copied by several companies. The US forces had used them for defending bases and convoy escort in Vietnam, apparently with success. And yet with all this design and marketing experience, their entry for the home market's first major wheeled AFV order since WWII still lost out to a foreign design. But that's not necessarily a reflection on the quality of the Cadillac LAV contender, is it?
I just think the notion that because a military has had a tendancy to use foreign-designed weapons, that country's domestic military (and other) products are invariably shit - is something of a sweeping statement.

FAL is 7.62mm BTW, not 5.56.

Damn damn damn damn damn damn! That was careless, sorry.