MAF abandon Steyr after 15-year service
-
So is SAF still using M193?Originally posted by Shotgun:What? So the Entire MAF is gonna adopt M855 ammunition for the M-16A4s and M4s?
I read the SAR21 is meant for M855, but M193 also can. -
That I'm not sure. Maybe can ask some of the Ammo Storeman.
I'm not sure what happens when a 193 is fired through a SAR-21 or M-16A4. I can imagine its spinning way faster than it should be. Best to ask the gun nuts about the effects. I imagine the penetration is reduced, and fragmentation effects increased. -
The difference between a rifle firing M855 and M193 is that the M855 rifle has an optimal rifling of 1 in 7" while the M193 has optimal rifling of 1 in 12". The M855 round is heavier and thus requires the greater twist to make it spin properly. IIRC the M193 cannot be fired from rifles with 1 in 7" twist, while the M855 can be used in rifles with 1 in 12" twist, but is only accurate to about 100m. I think the M855 has better penetration and accuracy over a given distance, while the M193 has better fragmentation characteristics. IIRC the US Military is having problems with the M855 because it would go straight through an insurgent and only leave a small hole, and the insurgent would keep on coming.
-
Is the M855 the one with the Tungsten Carbide penetrator?Originally posted by edwin3060:The difference between a rifle firing M855 and M193 is that the M855 rifle has an optimal rifling of 1 in 7" while the M193 has optimal rifling of 1 in 12". The M855 round is heavier and thus requires the greater twist to make it spin properly. IIRC the M193 cannot be fired from rifles with 1 in 7" twist, while the M855 can be used in rifles with 1 in 12" twist, but is only accurate to about 100m. I think the M855 has better penetration and accuracy over a given distance, while the M193 has better fragmentation characteristics. IIRC the US Military is having problems with the M855 because it would go straight through an insurgent and only leave a small hole, and the insurgent would keep on coming. -
No. M855 is still a ball.
The M995 is the AP round with a Tungsten Carbide penetrator. AP rounds are dangerous to use in FIBUA since they tend to ricochet. -
More U.S. troops using confiscated AK-47 rifles
By ANDREW ENGLAND, Associated Press
Last Updated 11:24 am PDT Sunday, August 24, 2003
Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)
A U.S. Army soldier holds a Kalashnikov rifle in Baqouba, Iraq, on Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003. Many U.S. soldiers are carrying Kalashnikovs they have confiscated from Iraqis. AP Photo/Sergei Grits
BAQOUBA, Iraq (AP) - An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger.
Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete.
U.S. troops in Iraq may not have found weapons of mass destruction, but they're certainly getting their hands on the country's stock of Kalashnikovs - and, they say, they need them.
The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.
A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank's firepower for protection.
But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.
"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.
"Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young said. "We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged."
In Humvees, on tanks - but never openly on base - U.S. soldiers are carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first developed in the Soviet Union but now mass produced around the world.
The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.
Now U.S. troops who have picked up AKs on raids or confiscated them at checkpoints are putting the rifles to use - and they like what they see.
Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better "knockdown" power and can kill with fewer shots.
"The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy quick," said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee.
Some troops say the AK is easier to maintain and a better close-quarters weapon. Also, it has "some psychological affect on the enemy when you fire back on them with their own weapons," McCarson said.
Most U.S. soldiers agree the M16 and the M4 - a newer, shorter version of the M16 that has been used by American troops since the 1960s - is better for long distance, precision shooting.
But around Baqouba, troops are finding themselves attacked by assailants hidden deep in date palm groves. Or they are raiding houses, taking on enemies at close-quarters.
Two weeks ago, Sgt. Sam Bailey of Cedar Falls, Iowa, was in a Humvee when a patrol came under rocket-propelled grenade and heavy machine gun fire. It was dark, the road narrow. On one side, there was a mud wall and palms trees, on the other a canal surrounded by tall grass.
Bailey, who couldn't see who was firing, had an AK-47 on his lap and his M4 up front. The choice was simple.
"I put the AK on auto and started spraying," Bailey said.
Some soldiers also say it's easier to get ammo for the AK - they can pick it up on any raid or from any confiscated weapon.
"It's plentiful," said Sgt. Eric Harmon, a tanker who has a full 75-round drum, five 30-round magazines, plus 200-300 rounds in boxes for his AK. He has about 120 rounds for his M16.
Young doesn't carry an AK but has fired one. He's considered banning his troops from carrying AKs, but hasn't yet because "if I take the AK away from some of the soldiers, then they will not have a rifle to carry with them."
Staff Sgt. Michael Perez, a tanker, said he would take anything over his standard issue 9mm pistol when he's out of his tank.
And the AK's durability has impressed him.
"They say you can probably drop this in the water and leave it overnight, pull it out in the morning, put in a magazine and it will work," Perez said. -
M4 Carbine Fares Poorly in Dust Test
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | December 18, 2007
The primary weapon carried by most soldiers into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan performed the worst in a recent series of tests designed to see how it stacked up against three other top carbines in sandy environments.
After firing 6,000 rounds through ten M4s in a dust chamber at the Army's Aberdeen test center in Maryland this fall, the weapons experienced a total of 863 minor stoppages and 19 that would have required the armorer to fix the problem. Stacked up against the M4 during the side-by-side tests were two other weapons popular with special operations forces, including the Heckler and Koch 416 and the FN USA Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, or Mk16.
Another carbine involved in the tests that had been rejected by the Army two years ago, the H&K XM8, came out the winner, with a total of 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones. The Mk16 experienced a total of 226 stoppages, the 416 had 233.
The Army was quick to point out that even with 863 minor stoppages -- termed "class one" stoppages which require 10 seconds or less to clear and "class two" stoppages which require more than ten seconds to clear -- the M4 functioned well, with over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds firing without a problem.
"The M4 carbine is a world-class weapon," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the Army's top equipment buyer, in a Dec. 17 briefing at the Pentagon. Soldiers "have high confidence in that weapon, and that high confidence level is justified, in our view, as a result of all test data and all investigations we have made."
Though Army testers and engineers are still evaluating the data, officials with the Army's Infantry Center based in Fort Benning, Ga., said they planned to issue new requirements for the standard-issue carbine in about 18 months that could include a wholesale replacement of the M4. But the Army has been resistant to replace the M4, which has been in the Army inventory for over 18 years, until there's enough of a performance leap to justify buying a new carbine.
"We know there are some pretty exciting things on the horizon with technology ... so maybe what we do is stick with the M4 for now and let technologies mature enough that we can spin them into a new carbine," said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat development at the Army's Infantry Center. "It's just not ready yet. But it can be ready relatively rapidly."
That's not good enough for some on Capitol Hill who've pushed hard for the so-called "extreme dust test" since last spring. Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn placed a hold on the nomination of Army Secretary Pete Geren earlier this year to force the Army to take another look at the M4 and its reliability.
In an April 12 letter to the still unconfirmed Geren, Coburn wrote that "considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon." He insisted the Army conduct a side-by-side test to verify his contention that more reliable designs existed and could be fielded soon.
Despite the 98 percent reliability argument now being pushed by the Army, one congressional staffer familiar with the extreme dust tests is skeptical of the service's conclusions.
"This isn't brain surgery -- a rifle needs to do three things: shoot when you pull the trigger, put bullets where you aim them and deliver enough energy to stop what's attacking you," the staffer told Military.com in an email. "If the M4 can't be depended on to shoot then everything else is irrelevant."
The staffer offered a different perspective of how to view the Army's result. If you look at the numbers, he reasoned, the M4's 882 total stoppages averages out to a jam every 68 rounds. There are about 30 rounds per magazine in the M4.
By comparison, the XM8 jammed once every 472 rounds, the Mk16 every 265 rounds and the 416 every 257 rounds. Army officials contend soldiers rarely fire more than 140 rounds in an engagement.
"These results are stunning, and frankly they are significantly more dramatic than most weapons experts expected," the staffer said.
Army officials say the staffer's comparison is "misleading" since the extreme dust test did not represent a typical combat environment and did not include the regular weapons cleaning soldiers typically perform in the field.
So the Army is sticking by the M4 and has recently signed another contract with manufacturer Colt Defense to outfit several more brigade combat teams with the compact weapon. Service officials say feedback from the field on the M4 has been universally positive -- except for some grumbling about the stopping power of its 5.56mm round. And as long as soldiers take the time to clean their weapons properly, even the "extreme" dust testing showed the weapon performed as advertised.
"The force will tell you the weapon system is reliable, they're confident in it, they understand that the key to making that weapon system effective on the battlefield and killing the enemy is a solid maintenance program and, just as important, is a marksmanship program," said Sgt. Maj. Tom Coleman, sergeant major for PEO Soldier and the Natick Soldier Systems Center. "So, you can't start talking about a weapon system without bringing in all the other pieces that come into play."
That's not enough for some who say the technology is out there to field a better, more reliable rifle to troops in contact now.
"It's time to stop making excuses and just conduct a competition for a new weapon," the congressional staffer said. -
The article can be separated into 2 parts.
Actual quotes from soldiers, and those of the author's own opinions.
Here are the soldiers' quotes:
"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.
"The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy quick," said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee.
"It's plentiful," said Sgt. Eric Harmon, a tanker who has a full 75-round drum, five 30-round magazines, plus 200-300 rounds in boxes for his AK. He has about 120 rounds for his M16.
"They say you can probably drop this in the water and leave it overnight, pull it out in the morning, put in a magazine and it will work," Perez said.
....
And here are the author's own opinions whom he slotted in among the soldiers's quotes so that they sound like the ssoldiers made them.
The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.
Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better "knockdown" power and can kill with fewer shots.
...
Notice that none of the soldiers themselves were actually quoted as saying the M16 jammed, or that it jammed because of carbon fouling. Or that they wanted a piston HK416. In fact, many people who claimed to have served did not have bad things to say about the M16/M4's reliability. Or the IDF desert army for that matter. -
Here is perhaps the most famous story milked to death by the pro-HK media. That it was also the same incident as the Jessica Lynch farce bothered no one.
And bear in mind these are service-side personnel - not combat soldiers - who surrendered to the enemy without putting up much of a fight. Of course they had to blame something. It's a joke.
How many ambushes have the IDF suffered in the past 30 years with the M16? How come they didn't balme the M16?
...
Perhaps the most well-known incident of M16s failing in battle involves the 507th Maintenance Company in 2003 during the opening days of the ground invasion of Iraq.
Enemy forces ambushed 507th soldiers outside Nasiriyah, killing 11 and capturing six, when the unit became separated from a supply convoy.
Several of the 507th soldiers later complained that their M16s, and other weapons, failed them during the March 23 ambush.
The Army responded by revamping Basic Training to make sure soldiers knew how to better maintain their weapons and perform malfunction drills.
WhatÂ’s not so well known is how then-Pfc. Patrick Miller earned a Silver Star for keeping his M16 from jamming long enough to take out an enemy mortar position.
“We were taking fire from everywhere,” Sgt. Miller recalled in a recent Army Times interview.
Enemy fire had knocked out his five-ton truck, forcing him to fight on foot.
He dove for cover behind a dirt berm and spotted an Iraqi soldier manning a mortar position across the road.
“It looked like he was trying to drop the shell in the tube. That is when I fired the first shot and the guy went down.”
When he pulled the trigger again, nothing happened.
“After the first shot, the round ejected. When the next round went to go in, it froze up,” he said. “It didn’t feed all the way into the chamber.”
Miller pounded on the forward assist, a tiny plunger on the M16Â’s receiver designed to manually push the weaponÂ’s bolt into the chamber.
He fired his rifle once more, and it jammed again. Miller tried the immediate action drill he learned in Basic Combat Training — he slapped the bottom of the magazine to reseat it, pulled the charging handle back to look into the chamber. When he released, the bolt wouldn’t chamber the next round.
Changing magazines didnÂ’t work either.
“After the third magazine I decided it took longer to change mags than to beat on the forward assist,” he said.
That worked, but his weapon would only fire a single shot and jam again.
“I was beating that thing with the palm of my hand four or five times for each round,” he recalled.
Miller managed to fire about eight times using this frantic sequence under enemy fire.
It was a valiant, but futile, effort. His fellow soldiers were trying to fight, but their weapons failed them as well.
Miller turned around and shot at a target behind him.
“When I turned there were about 40 Iraqis that had moved up on the road” approaching his position, he said. “At that time there was not much else I could have done.”
Miller put down his rifle and surrendered.
...
Again, notice that they fired one round and it jammed. And in Jessica's case I think she didn't fire at all but still claimed weapon jammed.
So all these jams occurred on previously unfired weapons, where got carbon fouling? And if carbon-fouling is not the cause of the jam, which problem would a piston HK416 solve?
If you ask me, it was the trigger-fingers that jammed. Replace those. -
Maybe they got issued with dummy rounds...
No really. How does a "trigger" finger cause an M-16 to IA? Assuming that the fine powdery sand ever present in their webbings and weapons didn't cause the stoppages... -
The M16 didn't IA, the "soldiers" of the 507th Maintenance Coy did.Originally posted by Shotgun:Maybe they got issued with dummy rounds...
No really. How does a "trigger" finger cause an M-16 to IA? Assuming that the fine powdery sand ever present in their webbings and weapons didn't cause the stoppages...
"Trigger finger jam" i.e. they froze with fear.
Is that so surprising? Is it written anywhere that everyone wearing a uniform is ready to fight and die? -
They weren't expecting to fight, nor did they really know how to... it was not really a big surprise things turned out the way they did.Originally posted by chino65:The M16 didn't IA, the "soldiers" of the 507th Maintenance Coy did.
"Trigger finger jam" i.e. they froze with fear.
Is that so surprising? Is it written anywhere that everyone wearing a uniform is ready to fight and die?
Proves that even the troops not expected to fight like the normal grunt ought to know how to pull proper security. -
the malays are alway making stupid decission... pay more for less....
-
At the end of the day, the terrain in Malaysia is such, that all kills attained in Jungle Warfare took place at very short distances, 25 to 30 metres at most. So, the M4 is more than suitable, plus nobody likes a bullpup design anyway.
The MAF should have gone for the full length M16A4 and bought a lesser number of M4s for Special Forces, NCOs and Officers.
And who here seriously thinks they can shoot up to a distance of 400 yards accurately with the foliage so thick they can't see beyond 10 metres???
Some fairytale that.
-
Not all engagements take place in the thick of the jungles. There's still many Built Up Areas, plantations to consider. Visibility there is often up to 150 to 200m.
-
they should be able to see even up to 300m, lots of fairytale tell diff story
-
So, the M4 is more than suitable, plus nobody likes a bullpup design anyway.
AFAIK, the majority of new AR designs in the recent times have been bullpup. And I think it has been debated to the death in here so I won't go into it. Both designs have their own pros and cons but chances are you won't like it if you grew up on the conventional layout not because the bullpup is actually flawed, but because it is different.
Personally if given a choice between sacrificing barrel length or going bullpup to reduce weapon length, I'll go for bullpup.
At the end of the day, the terrain in Malaysia is such, that all kills attained in Jungle Warfare took place at very short distances, 25 to 30 metres at most.
In that case you are better off using an SMG, if you are really going to be banking on taking out your targets within 25-30 meters.
I've had plenty of time praticing firefights in the jungle and the truth is it's a pretty daft idea to engage your enemy that close in. Unless you are moving to contact, typically engagement ranges depend on the terrain as well as what have you not.
Basically unless the MAF intends to do ALL of its fighting in the jungle (which i think not), going all M4 is basically cutting off your options just to save some size and weight... not to mention giving up even more stopping power from a somewhat delicate round which relies on its muzzle velocity for killing power. At the end of the day, if you can find some way to keep the 20' barrel as and when you can, you ought to.
If you are contacted at distance (and such a situtation is possible in a jungle) and all you have is a carbine, then you at a serious disadvantage. Your rounds will have less barrier performance then your opponent as well as less terminal effects while your opponent's kill zone is effective further out.
-
So, the M4 is more than suitable, plus nobody likes a bullpup design anyway.
You wouldnt say that if you`re still using the Styers
-
I would have preferred the full length M16A4 for the MAF as it should be, but now the MAF must make do with what is.
The Steyr was not popular in the MAF, neither amongst the Officers or enlisted ranks. It was just another poor decision. Thanks anyway for your helpful feedback.
-
I remembered a time when the decision to produce and arm the MAF with Steyrs was made. It came with a big hurrah(you know lah..Mathathir era..typical big bang projects which fizzle out eventually). The Steyr was cited as being better than the old M16s with a new age bull-pup design that would serve the MAF well in potential future wars. And that the choice was made after careful and long consideration of many pertinent factors.
Im sure you must have read the newspaper reports then as well as the posts made by Malaysians. I think you can still `google' for them. Views change eh. Im sure the love factor will not change with the M4 this time round eh ? It`s not really the weapons as opposed to the process at which these decisions are made which is the issue. Questionable weapon purchases are symptomatic of the larger issue of an undisciplined and topsy turvy decision making process which affects a lot of governmental deals; internally or otherwise. Hopefully, this will change but the problem is very much deep-seated and entwined with the way politics and race is managed there.
-
Question: Is the M4 the carbine SAF uses?
-
SAF uses both the good ol' CAR-15 and the M4. I've seen a pretty souped up SOF M4 during one of the AOHs a few yrs back
-
Used our SAR21 solve all their problem
-
I just remembered something... one of the problems with using the M16 in vietnam was that the M193 round fragmented even when going through light cover, i.e. even leaves and small branches will protect the target. I am not sure about the M193 rounds now, but using the M4 will make this problem more prevalent versus the M16 or SAR-21 with the 20 inch barrel. Anyway, its not that big a jump from the M4 back to the M16, so if they encounter such problems I am sure they can just manufacture M16 upper receivers to retrofit their M4s.
-
I just remembered something... one of the problems with using the M16 in vietnam was that the M193 round fragmented even when going through light cover, i.e. even leaves and small branches will protect the target. I am not sure about the M193 rounds now, but using the M4 will make this problem more prevalent versus the M16 or SAR-21 with the 20 inch barrel. Anyway, its not that big a jump from the M4 back to the M16, so if they encounter such problems I am sure they can just manufacture M16 upper receivers to retrofit their M4s.
Actually fragmentation will be less likely from the M4 due to the reduced muzzle velocity. This is because the bullets fragment due to the energy overcoming the mechnical strength of the round after it enters a dense medium, but if you do not drive the round fast enough, this effect will be reduced.
Hence from the M4, the "sweet" spot of the 5.56mm where it causes the most damage is significantly reduced compared to a full length barrel. Hence the noticable weakness of the M4 compared to other firearms shooting the same ammo.