Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 01 Nov 2014 04:25

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2268 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 57  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 15 May 2008 11:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
ticky wrote:
I saw Assam Rifles troops on patrol carrying Insas rifles with a long thin telescopic sight attached, couldn't get any pics though. They would have caned my ass if I tried

Hmm... like this?
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 May 2008 12:49 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 06 Apr 2008 13:13
Posts: 87
yup something like that


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 May 2008 14:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
ticky wrote:
yup something like that

PSO-1
http://www.binocularsmart.com/scopes/ak ... so-1.shtml


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 May 2008 15:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Posts: 1905
Location: wai -maharastra
Quote:
up something like that


igor - a stupid question
in a really long range shot say 2000 meters plus is the scope of any kind a big help unless you have specially developed bullet and ofcourse tons of experience innjudging the fall of bullet and in the prevailing wind condition.

I was talking about this to a friend of mine -US marine recon -who said in iraq they routinely shoot at 2 km plus at man sized target but not with standard assault rifle but with M2 and special bullets

Coming back how effective is a telescopic sight on AKM/AK and then upto what effective range for a standard soldier


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 May 2008 17:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Shankar wrote:
Quote:
up something like that


igor - a stupid question
in a really long range shot say 2000 meters plus is the scope of any kind a big help unless you have specially developed bullet and ofcourse tons of experience innjudging the fall of bullet and in the prevailing wind condition.

I was talking about this to a friend of mine -US marine recon -who said in iraq they routinely shoot at 2 km plus at man sized target but not with standard assault rifle but with M2 and special bullets

Coming back how effective is a telescopic sight on AKM/AK and then upto what effective range for a standard soldier

According to Chechnya war experience, the better anti-sniper weapon is NSVT/KORD 12.7 mm machinegun with day/night optic sight.
Image
- It really can take on a sniper from the distance like 2 km or even more. The burst option is extramally good for such instance. So, your American friend is right. However, if one want to remain uncovered, the sniper rifle with silencer/tactic sound depressor - is the best choice. It may be especially important for those who are terrorists :rotfl:

While the rifles for super long distance shooting (1.5 km and more) are very heavy, cranky and expensive, the Armies prefer something lighter, more crude and reliable in real exploatation conditions. FOr example, SVD (SVU, SVDS) is counting as one of the best Army sniper (sharpshooting) rifle, although you hardly can expect with it a chest target hit from the distances more than 1000 m. In the most tactic situations you dont even need longer distance of fire.

Regards AKM with scope sight - it may be rational with the scope of low magnification - as 1.2-2, red dot, since this weapon has effective range of 500 m only due to characteristics of a round 7.62x39 mm. So in the most tactical situation a platoon must have sharpshooting option (SVD) for better covering the distance from 400 to 1000 m. Ak-74 with higher velocity of 5.45 mm bullets has however something better effective range - like 800 m. The Russian Army aniper's groups broadly use the sniper variant of AK-74M as an additional weapon in case of close range engagement. This sniper AK's were chosen after range from the manufactured barrels with minimal dispertion. They have a scope site and 20 round magazin (as INSAS has too) for better using in a prone position. They also have tactical silencer. Second variant - with shorten barrel and silencer, but it's cannot be for precisious shooting of course:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 May 2008 19:10 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 18 May 2008 19:06
Posts: 1
found this on net.. I guess this is the one you were talking about

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x137 ... io/na8.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 May 2008 20:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
msandhu wrote:
found this on net.. I guess this is the one you were talking about
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x137 ... io/na8.jpg

It's indigeneose from OFB. Most probably with x2.5 magnification, this one:
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/optical/11.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2008 00:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 3287
Location: Loud, Proud American
Shankar wrote:
I was talking about this to a friend of mine -US marine recon -who said in iraq they routinely shoot at 2 km plus at man sized target but not with standard assault rifle but with M2 and special bullets

USMC uses M40 A3 as its current sniping rifle.

An M40 starts off life as a Remington 700 hunting rifle (incidentally, another version of the Remington 700 is used as the base for the M24 - the Army's version of the sniper rifle). Originally the USMC used it unmodified, but it became apparent that the unmodified rifle wasn't rugged enough for field use. So in the 70s, they started modifying it a bit (custom scope and fiberglass stock instead of wooden stock) and called in the M40 A1.

For the M40 A3, here's a list of major modifications:
* Standard barrel is replaced by match-grade (shooting competition quality) heavy barrel
* Fiberglass custom stock instead of standard wooden stock (doesn't warp in cold and warm weather unlike the wooden stock and is a lot tougher)
* Action - They keep the standard Remington 700 short action receiver that comes with the original rifle, but each one is hand-tuned and refitted by the Marine armorers for maximum accuracy. The army's M24 uses a different receiver (long action instead of short action, so they can switch to bigger cartridges if needed).
* Custom scope
* Bipod attachment


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2008 00:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
ArmenT wrote:
Shankar wrote:
I was talking about this to a friend of mine -US marine recon -who said in iraq they routinely shoot at 2 km plus at man sized target but not with standard assault rifle but with M2 and special bullets

USMC uses M40 A3 as its current sniping rifle.
You can never achieve 2 km distance hit with this rifle, bcz it uses the standard 7.62x51 mm NATO caliber (sniper round). It's efective range is 1000 m. Also M40 is bolt actioned, so it may be too late in some cases . They started to use XM110 Semi-Automatic Sniper Rifle (XM110 SASR) in A-stan, which after 50 years old M40 IMHO lookes like a great progress for the Americans . And 2-2.5 km sniper fire is mostly terroristic tactics. I hardly can imagine a real situation when an enemy will be destroyed from the 2-2.5 km distance by with using sniping instead of machingun, ATGM or even arty support.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2008 01:34 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 02:36
Posts: 41
Location: Planet Earth
Quote:
I hardly can imagine a real situation when an enemy will be destroyed from the 2-2.5 km distance by with using sniping instead of machingun, ATGM or even arty support.



Igorr,

I thought that Carlos Hathcock was able to get a kill at 1920 meters with a 7.62mm M40 in Vietnam. The record for a 7.62mm kill in Iraq is 1250 meters where a Sgt engaged insurgents that were firing mortars at friendly troops. These were rare occasions though and to be able to hit targets at that range with a rifle requires a heavier caliber i.e .50

Quote:
I was talking about this to a friend of mine -US marine recon -who said in iraq they routinely shoot at 2 km plus at man sized target but not with standard assault rifle but with M2 and special bullets


Shankar,

Hathcock held the previous record for long range sniping (until it was broken by the Canadian sniper team in Afghanistan) by modifying an M2 .50 MG to carry a scope and to fire on semi-auto.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2008 02:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Abhi K Rao wrote:
I thought that Carlos Hathcock was able to get a kill at 1920 meters with a 7.62mm M40 in Vietnam. The record for a 7.62mm kill in Iraq is 1250 meters where a Sgt engaged insurgents that were firing mortars at friendly troops. These were rare occasions though and to be able to hit targets at that range with a rifle requires a heavier caliber i.e .50
The records mean nothing about from days to days needs of army. Look, I suppose there are not seldom cases in XX century wars, when the sniper had a luck to hit target even from longer distance, although unregistered by historians. Even a blind with n-probability can hit a target from x-distance. The question, if he could repeat it in sequence. BTW, the maximal range advertised for SVD is 1200 m, - almost the record for 7.62, but each sniper knows after 1000 m you must have a good luck to hit with SVD even with ballistic calculator.


Last edited by Igorr on 19 May 2008 02:16, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2008 02:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 3287
Location: Loud, Proud American
Igorr wrote:
You can never achieve 2 km distance hit with this rifle, bcz it uses the standard 7.62x51 mm NATO caliber (sniper round). It's efective range is 1000 m.

Yes, you are quite correct. The effective range for the M40-A3 is around 1000m. The 50 cal Barrett M82 (and its successors upto XM500) is what is used for longer ranges (2 km). The problem with the M82 is that it isn't easily transported around.

For the record, the Canadian sniper who set the record for longest shot was also using a 50 cal (McMillan Bolt Action rifle), as was Carlos Hathcock's shot (with an 50 cal M2 Machine Gun, not an M40)

Incidentally, Russians also have something similar: OSV-96

The trouble with all these weapons are they're not easily transported and the user needs to be in position and waiting for things to show up. Easier to call an Arty strike at long range, unless you have civilians in the area as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2008 02:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
ArmenT wrote:
Igorr wrote:
You can never achieve 2 km distance hit with this rifle, bcz it uses the standard 7.62x51 mm NATO caliber (sniper round). It's efective range is 1000 m.

Yes, you are quite correct. The effective range for the M40-A3 is around 1000m. The 50 cal Barrett M82 (and its successors upto XM500) is what is used for longer ranges (2 km). The problem with the M82 is that it isn't easily transported around.The trouble with all these weapons are they're not easily transported and the user needs to be in position and waiting for things to show up.

It's just a point! It's too easy to make a long range rifle with heavy 'match' barrel and .50 cal. It will weight as 15 kg, so it negate its benefits as well. HOw mobile intelligence group could take it in the Mountain operation? Assume, you are in recco in Afghan Hindukush mountains and see the Taliban group moving. Will you want to fire on them with .50 or better ask helo support?

And again, I thing the insurgents can benefit from long range sniping much more, than any regular forces.

Other example: you are at block-post in Chechnya or at 'makhsom' in Hebron, check point in Baghdad or A-stan. What you should prefer to defend checkpoint from the suddent attack of terrorists: .50 Sniper or MG with same caliber? I think, your answer is obvious if you was somewhere in such situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2008 09:22 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 02:36
Posts: 41
Location: Planet Earth
Armen,

Thx for the clarification, I thought that Hancock was able to get a 1920 meter shot with the M40 but as you stated it was probably the M2. There was another reported kill using the M2 of over 2300 meters. The M2 with sight was used early as Korea and was even pioneered during World War 2.

Igorr,

I agree there are many instances where it was a matter of pure luck to achieve over 1000 range shots with a 7.62mm gun but there are also several examples where it was due to user skill. For example as early as in 1965 in Phu Bai, Marine Corps snipers were able to kill 2 VC at ranges of 1100 meters and injure another on October 23rd. This was using the older Model 70 Remington rifle and not the more advanced M40.

Quote:
BTW, the maximal range advertised for SVD is 1200 m, - almost the record for 7.62, but each sniper knows after 1000 m you must have a good luck to hit with SVD even with ballistic calculator.


Also from what I have read about the SVD, its maximum effective range is stated at about 600 yards. Apparently engaging targets at over 800 yards cuts down the chance of accuracy by almost 50%. A lot of people do not consider the SVD to be a ‘true’ sniper rifle and believe that it is better relegated to the designated marksman role. My point is that with a SVD, it would require pure luck to get several hits over 1000 meters but this has been repeatedly demonstrated with bolt action 7.62mm rifles such as the Remington. For example, Winchester developed special magnum ammunition for the M24 that enabled it to get 1000 meter plus shots on a normal basis.

About 100 M82a1’s were rushed into Marine Corps service during the first gulf war. One of these engaged and destroyed an Iraqi Bmp at 1100 yards with 2 incendiary rounds. Enemy personnel were able to be engaged at 1800 yards and there was even an unconfirmed kill of around 2200 yards. I think that it depends on what sort of scenario you are facing, but I think that heavier Sniper rifles could be of use in certain scenarios. I agree that I would much rather have an MG at the checkpoint in Chechnya, but if I had a BMP coming at me, I would much rather have the Barrett .50 than a machine gun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 May 2008 20:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Abhi K Rao wrote:
I agree that I would much rather have an MG at the checkpoint in Chechnya, but if I had a BMP coming at me, I would much rather have the Barrett .50 than a machine gun.
Why .50 single shot better than .50 burst against BMP? Both will penetrate BMP, but burst is always better for killing soldiers sitting inside. Anyway you need two person sniper team for Barret .50 employment. With better success you can use KORD (in portable variant) or more heavy NSVT (for check points):
Image

I also recomend to you an article about this Russian .50 MG in English:
http://www.zshare.net/download/12257392cd20e4dc/ with some explains to my claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 May 2008 12:52 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 02:36
Posts: 41
Location: Planet Earth
Igorr,

I was just thinking along the lines of an anti-material sniper rifle instead of MG against an IFV because the former (although not light) is much more portable than a heavy MG. Also, the latter is much more visible and Imho more vulnerable to return fire from the IFV because of the need for positioning and also visibility when firing back. I would think a sniper with an anti-material rifle would be much less visible when firing than a soldier with a bipod mounted heavy machine gun. Moreover, I would think an anti-material sniper team would be easier to reposition in a variety of scenarios and would not require a fixed position or foxholes. For example, a sniper could hide in a patch of grass with a Ghille suite and remain invisible whereas a heavy MG gunner would be easily spotted and picked of at long range by the IFV. In the previous Gulf war example, the sniper spotted three BMPs and engaged the lead one. After watching the leader blow up, the crews in the other 2 Bmps abandoned their vehicles because they did not even know what/who was engaging them. Now if the same happened but with a Machine gun (and the crews were half decent), they could easily return fire with their 73mm guns on the position where the MG was located. If the opponent was utilizing an anti-material sniper rifle and had good cover, it would be much harder to pinpoint the location where the fire was coming from.

Even though the MG provides a burst to kill more soldiers inside, I would think one or two DU anti-material rounds would achieve the same ( from either shrapnel or from igniting the fuel tanks in the Bmp located in the rear). I just finished a round of exams and am pretty exhausted but I shall read that pdf file that you linked tomorrow. Thanks for the additional information comrade-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 May 2008 18:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Abhi ,
I'm agree of course that an antimaterial rifle may be better in some situation, especially, when one needs to remain uncovered. The question is how often such situation? If looking on Iraqi current situation, who is the most benefitiar of the sniper/antimaterial option? It's certaintly not the coalition forces. Assume, not them nor the insurgents have rifles for long range shooting, the coalition will not lose something significant in its potential. THey have MGs, ATGMs, Arty etc for this instance. Not the same with the insurgents: the long range shooting gave them an unique possibility to hit and run. The coalition just dosnt need to run after hit in the most circumstances. Thus I think the development of ultra-long range riles, in .50 caliber and slightly lower calibre bullet in the same case, - adds only few for regular forces. It may be more rational for police operation, when one needs pinpoint hit with only minimal collateral damage.

Also, are you aware for latest development: it's become popular to use 'silencer' ( tactical sound depressor) even for .50 cal. Also in some extend shorten barrel makes .50 cal machingun well comparable with an antimaterial gun in weight:
1) XM312:
ImageImage
2) 6P62 Barsuk:
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 May 2008 03:03 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 02:36
Posts: 41
Location: Planet Earth
Igorr,

That is a valid point on the day to day requirements of a respective military force and I do agree with the fact that insurgents would have the most to gain from wielding anti-material rifles. Awhile back, I remember reading an article that was released by the Department of Defense stating the concern and danger of insurgents/terrorists getting a hold of anti-material rifles. This weapon could pose a significant threat to friendly soldiers with body armor, light armored vehicles, and could even bring down helicopters. I agree that on today’s battlefield (from the coalition point of view) the lack of an anti-material rifle could be compensated for by the use of artillery, scoped Mgs, etc. However, I think that this weapon provides a surgical ability for commanders to reach out and strike targets in distant populated areas and cannot always be substituted for by the other fore mentioned weapons.

For example, the anti-material rifle option seems appealing in situations where enemy insurgents are conducting hit and run tactics with mortars in populated centers. In this scenario it might not be feasible to call in artillery or have bursts of MG flying through surrounding buildings. The question is whether the sniper rifle is a better option than a scoped MG on semi-auto from the coalition point of view. As with any other weapon system the anti-material rifle comes with certain associated limitations, but I think that these rifles will remain in service for a long time. I don’t know if it could be fully replaced by scoped machine guns (even with lighter construction, scopes, and the mentioned accessories for sound/flash). What qualifies the decision to use XX weapon in XY scenario seems to be a bit subjective and I would think it would vary as per the battlefield imperatives and circumstances. The BMP example was just one of my arm chair ‘what if’ scenarios but I agree with most of your points in general.

I was unaware of the silencer and flash suppressors being fitted to the Heavy Mgs- I guess you learn something new everyday. I still have to finish reading the PDF file but I was wondering how much the muzzle flash and sound is reduced by these accessories. For example, if some one was firing a burst at my position from 1500 meters (as opposed to one or two rounds from a .50 rifle), would I be able to discern where the fire was coming from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 May 2008 20:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Abhi K Rao wrote:
I was wondering how much the muzzle flash and sound is reduced by these accessories. For example, if some one was firing a burst at my position from 1500 meters (as opposed to one or two rounds from a .50 rifle), would I be able to discern where the fire was coming from?

About this .50 MG with tactical sound reducer I have no exactly numbers. However, 7.62 mm AEK-999 MG of the same manufacturer (Kovrov) with the same kind silencer cannot be recognised from the distance of 400-600 m. Its information is from the Russian of-line journal 'Oruzhie' (Weapon) 3.2008. So, I predict for .50 MG with this silencer is still audible at least on 600 m. To count it more exactly we need to know how loudly they normally fire in db.


Some news from US (via Russian source):army and marines will be equipped with new long range sniper rifle with hit ability up to 1500-1800 m . The caliber is not .50. Didnt disclose. Will be a tender.

In Army M14 platoon sharpshooters will be changed to 5.56 mm with effective range 600 m on M4 basis.

Marines will change their bolt action M40 on a new semi-automatic (wery clever but very late decision!) - the parameters isnt worked out yet. They were not satisfated with Army's 7.62 mm M110.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 27 May 2008 00:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 3287
Location: Loud, Proud American
Abhi K Rao wrote:
I was unaware of the silencer and flash suppressors being fitted to the Heavy Mgs- I guess you learn something new everyday. I still have to finish reading the PDF file but I was wondering how much the muzzle flash and sound is reduced by these accessories. For example, if some one was firing a burst at my position from 1500 meters (as opposed to one or two rounds from a .50 rifle), would I be able to discern where the fire was coming from?

You can suppress the rifle flash and sound of the gases exiting the barrel, but you can't suppress the sound of the sonic boom caused by a bullet flying faster than the speed of sound. This is what causes the distinctive rifle-crack noise. Even subsonic bullets make a whistling noise when they fly through the air (aside from the fact that using a subsonic bullet also reduces the effective range and power of the rifle). So there is no way to completely silence a rifle. At best, you can reduce some of the flash and noise signature, but you cannot eliminate it.

One of the things USMC snipers learned in WWII and Vietnam is that if a bullet flies over a large obstacle (such as a log, a building etc.), the sound of the bullet crack appears to come from the obstacle rather than behind it. This was exploited by snipers where they would take up position about 50-100 feet behind a fallen tree and shoot from there. The enemy would think the sniper is at the fallen tree and concentrate their return fire at it, while the sniper would safely slip away from further back. Incidentally this is one of the reasons why snipers are also trained to shoot from the back of the room, unlike in the movies where they shoot from the window sill. You can see in the picture posted by Igorr above that the two men are leaning against the back wall of the room rather than the window.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 27 May 2008 23:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
The purpose of a contemporal tactical sound reducing isnt only consealament but other functions:
- It gives better contollability for the commander, using his voice.
- it saves ears for a machine-gunner
- it sometimes gives better distinction between enemy and fraternal fire.
- it makes an autimatic fire more stable due to a gas compensation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2008 19:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Quote:
Chief of staff: Army reviewing complaints over bullets

By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 29, 7:03 PM ET

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - The military is reviewing soldiers' complaints that their standard ammunition isn't powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's highest-ranking officer said Thursday. But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said it was too soon to say whether the Pentagon will switch. ADVERTISEMENT



Current and former soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military's M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking with reporters at a conference in Huntsville, Casey said leaders are constantly soliciting feedback from soldiers in the field and were aware of complaints about the M855 ammunition.

"To effectively prepare them we have to adapt as the enemy adapts, and that is some of the feedback we have gotten," Casey said. "We'll evaluate it quickly and then we'll decide how we want to proceed."

But Casey said it would be premature to say if the Pentagon will consider a different type of ammunition.

"I can't tell you exactly what we're going to do," he said.

The M855 rounds were designed decades ago to puncture the steel helmets of Soviet soldiers from hundreds of yards away. Some soldiers said that they are not large enough to stop an enemy immediately in close quarters.

Casey said the military has been evaluating its equipment and practices since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"Technology is pulling us, and what we're learning on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is pushing us," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_ ... ef_bullets


Strangengly they dont speak about their much prised more heavy Mk 262 5.56 bullets, recently came to A-stan.

Quote:
The M855 rounds were designed decades ago to puncture the steel helmets of Soviet soldiers from hundreds of yards away.

- Even that hardly possible now :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Jun 2008 13:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
A test fire of AN-94 vs. M16. They claim Nikonov's rifle is 10 times better in accurateness than M16:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEZuT3gi ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2008 13:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 3287
Location: Loud, Proud American
Extreme Handgun Durability Test

I've been thinking that when I purchase a pistol, it's going to be a Glock.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2008 03:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
The Americans will be with a new .50 MG not after 2011! Even a scope sight it will use, something, that 90-years old M2 cannot do. Very quick & impressive development :mrgreen:

The U.S. Department of Defense has given General Dynamics $9 million to try and develop a lightweight .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine-gun (to be known as LW50MG for the moment) that works. An earlier attempt (the XM312) by General Dynamics did not work out so well.

Three years ago, field testing of the XM-312, the proposed replacement for the eighty year old, .50 caliber (12.7mm) M-2 machine-gun, began, in the United States and overseas. Then, nothing. That's because the test results were not encouraging, the biggest shortcoming being the low rate of fire (about 260 rounds per minute). This is about half the rate of the M2, and was believed adequate for the 25mm smart shells the XM312 was originally designed for (as the XM307). But for 12.7mm bullets, it didn't impress the troops. There were some reliability problems, which could be fixed. The rate-of-fire issue, however, has proved to be more difficult. Meanwhile, a new upgrade for the M2 has been fielded, and Ma Deuce still rules the battlefield. The new M2E2 has a quick change barrel, flash hider and lot of small improvements. It is much in demand.

Originally, the M2 replacement was going to be the M-307, which was designed so it could fire either the computer controlled 25mm "smart shell" of the XM-25, or (by changing the barrel and receiver), .50 caliber ammo. But it was felt that a straight replacement for the M-2 was needed quickly. The original plan was for the troops to begin getting the XM312 in 2008, or sooner. But the dismal test results produced a trip back to the drawing board.

The M-2, nicknamed "Ma Deuce" by the troops, has been around so long because it was very good at what it does. Accurate, reliable, rugged and easy to use, many of the M-2s currently in use are decades old, and finally wearing out. The army doesn't want to build new ones, and wasn't sure it could do without the venerable, and very useful, M2. So it ended up going ahead with the plan to build a new .50 caliber machine-gun (the XM312). Actually, this Ma Deuce replacement is basically the XM307, but without the ability to fire 25mm rounds. The XM312 weighs 36 pounds (compared to 50 for the M-2), even with the addition of the electronic fire control stuff from the XM307. The LW50MG will ignore the 25mm business, and probably borrow a lot of ideas from superior 12.7mm designs developed in other nations. That's because the LW50MG won't be the first lightweight rival for the Ma Deuce replacement market. Buying a superior foreign replacement is difficult politically (although it is done), and there is also the feeling that the superior foreign weapons aren't as superior as they could be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2008 01:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Heckler&Koch G11 assault rifle resembles Russian AN-94 with its delayed recoil system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdErfyYeJeU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2008 03:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57
Posts: 4892
Igorr wrote:
A test fire of AN-94 vs. M16. They claim Nikonov's rifle is 10 times better in accurateness than M16:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEZuT3gi ... re=related


Igorr, have you heard of H&K G-11?

http://www.remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g11/g11.htm

It made use of the caseless ammo for the rapid-burst firing.

I'm wondering if Russians have experimented with anything similar to MetalStorm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2008 03:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
Sanjay M wrote:
It made use of the caseless ammo for the rapid-burst firing.

I'm wondering if Russians have experimented with anything similar to MetalStorm.
I speak about its recoil-delaying mechanism very similar with AN-94 Abakan, not about ammo. Its totally different question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2008 02:18 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 21 Jun 2008 23:25
Posts: 11
what is the russian (in IA) equivalent to M110?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2008 03:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 May 2007 01:20
Posts: 263
Location: ghaziabad
krishnasr wrote:
what is the russian (in IA) equivalent to M110?


i guess its the newer version of dragunov svd


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2008 10:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57
Posts: 4892
http://my.break.com/Content/view.aspx?ContentID=525932


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 25 Jun 2008 14:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23262
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Sanjay M wrote:
http://my.break.com/Content/view.aspx?ContentID=525932


SanjayM - this post of yours has been reported with the following comment:

Quote:
Could you please ask sanjaym to state what the link is about when he posts them. It's a waste of b/w when the link leads to site that advertises a flashlight which turns into an gun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 22 Jul 2008 01:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
A mixture of interesting pics
ImageImageImage
ImageImageImage
ImageImageImage
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 22 Jul 2008 05:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01
Posts: 740
Hi Igorr,

Do Russian supplied planes to India come with a full Aircrew Survival and Evasion kits? Recently I read an article about an Indian pilot shot-down during the Kargil Conflict and how he used a Markov initially. Now a Markov is not part of the standard Indian TOE, with the side-arm being Indian Inglis-copy of FN35 mostly, or more rarely Glock 17 or 19. So I was wondering where that came from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 22 Jul 2008 10:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Posts: 598
ParGha wrote:
Do Russian supplied planes to India come with a full Aircrew Survival and Evasion kits? Recently I read an article about an Indian pilot shot-down during the Kargil Conflict and how he used a Markov initially. Now a Markov is not part of the standard Indian TOE, with the side-arm being Indian Inglis-copy of FN35 mostly, or more rarely Glock 17 or 19. So I was wondering where that came from?
I think it was its personal decision to go with Makarov. There is a well known history of a US pilot, that was hit above Vietnam and survived in jungles for weeks till came to the friends. He praised Makarov very high, since it has saved life to him, in harsh conditions didnt misfire even a once, despite number of clashes with Viet-Kong. After this story I think many pilots in the world, who really go in fight, prefered Makarov.

BTW, it's accurate and not expencive weapon. It was designed after WW2 for mainly policeman function so its stopping power is exellent, but the killing power is reduced intentionally for slightly above the killing borderline of 300 kJ. It's something good in it however, because its subsonic 9x18 mm round gives lesser recoil than supersonic Para 9x19 mm, and Makarov is rather accurate weapon. At last the new rounds with the light AP supersonic bullets were designed, but they need a new strenghter modification of Makarov pistol:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 22 Jul 2008 12:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35
Posts: 588
Quote:
but it became apparent that the unmodified rifle wasn't rugged enough for field use. So in the 70s, they started modifying it a bit (custom scope and fiberglass stock instead of wooden stock) and called in the M40 A1.



Actually one of the Biggest reasons for removing the Wooden Stock is that Wood begins to Degrade very rapidly overtime specially when put through various Climates (Tropical,Desert,High Alt). Expansion and contraction of wood aside the Wood tends to get heavy and lopsided and kills the effectiveness/accuracy of the rifle. Thus it was cheaper to use fiberglass stocks and replace the Stock only when damaged instead of having the recycle the whole rifle in the case of wooden stocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 22 Jul 2008 16:13 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01
Posts: 740
Igorr wrote:
ParGha wrote:
Do Russian supplied planes to India come with a full Aircrew Survival and Evasion kits? Recently I read an article about an Indian pilot shot-down during the Kargil Conflict and how he used a Markov initially. Now a Markov is not part of the standard Indian TOE, with the side-arm being Indian Inglis-copy of FN35 mostly, or more rarely Glock 17 or 19. So I was wondering where that came from?
I think it was its personal decision to go with Makarov. There is a well known history of a US pilot, that was hit above Vietnam and survived in jungles for weeks till came to the friends. He praised Makarov very high, since it has saved life to him, in harsh conditions didnt misfire even a once, despite number of clashes with Viet-Kong. After this story I think many pilots in the world, who really go in fight, prefered Makarov.


What is the authorized-issue sidearm of the Russian Air Force? For pilots?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 23 Jul 2008 03:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Mar 2004 12:31
Posts: 134
Location: Punjab
Hi Igorr,

what is the AK held by the punjab regt guys in the pictures with the US marines. I remember the exercise but am only now noticing the front of the barrell. Is is the 47 or 74. They don't seem to have the distinct 47 compensator which u can clearly see in the pictures after that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 23 Jul 2008 05:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01
Posts: 740
ssmitra wrote:
Hi Igorr,

what is the AK held by the punjab regt guys in the pictures with the US marines. I remember the exercise but am only now noticing the front of the barrell. Is is the 47 or 74. They don't seem to have the distinct 47 compensator which u can clearly see in the pictures after that.


It is an AKM (i.e AK-47 legacy). Indian Army has never bought any AK74s.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Small Arms Thread
PostPosted: 23 Jul 2008 06:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57
Posts: 4892
Rifle with Variable-Speed Bullets Developed


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2268 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 57  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cosmo_R and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group