Australian Defense Force new rifle.


Recommended Posts

You guys gotta remember, an M-16/M-4 you buy in the store is not the combat rifle that guys carry to the field. Those $500-1500 rifles are mostly plinkers are not the rifle I would bet my life on and carry into combat. The M4 now being produced by FN is currently $642. (http://www.guns.com/2013/02/26/fn-lands-army-m4-contract-underbids-colt-remington/) For once the govt isn't paying a $100 grand for a toilet seat. Even though they are still overspending on some like the Colt 1911 pistol. If memory serves me right $1100-1500 each (I cant remember) before discontinuing them from SOCOM. Civilian cost you can look at near quality with the H&K 416 and some of the BCM's and a few others. Look at the dollar range and your right there with the SCAR or the IDF's Tavor. Keep in mind those are new developments with R&D costs behind them. I think the main advantage to keeping the M4 is simply because it is a good rifle, modular, parts inventory and system stacked to the brim. However, I think there are great rifles out there. The Israeli Tavor and FN SCAR 16&17 are two of those rifles.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

... with a handle of TCContender, me thinks you're a fan of single shot pistols! Aye?

My preference, FN-FAL cause friends don't let friends shoot mouse guns!

Since I am a believer in victory through superior fire power I will call my friend Greg the winner here. He takes no prisoners!...

Where are you mate? -Piggy

Indeed that nom de plume is from Thompson Center. Are you a TC shooter? I am in the US in Charlotte, NC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AUG series is definitely rather interesting... I almost got one of those a while back, but just couldn't get beyond the terrible trigger pull that really defined these bullpup designs for so long. I finally got my first (and currently only) bullpup when IWI released the Tavor here in the US. It still has some trigger pull issues (will never be as clean/crisp as a Geiselle two stage trigger in an AR), but it's considerably better than previous designs and ergonomically it feel like the Israelis designed this thing for be specifically. Everything about it is perfect.

new_right-vi.jpg

But I do agree with Ray that the 5.56 NATO round isn't all that when it comes to longer ranges... and we have a lot of wide open flat space here in North Dakota. Something with more oomph is needed when you really need to reach out a ways:

Ferret50_rt1000-vi.jpg

And when anything less than a belt-fed simply won't do... you have to break out the belt-fed. Because belt-fed!

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I am a believer in victory through superior fire power I will call my friend Greg the winner here. He takes no prisoners!...

I rarely speak in absolutes... we don't take most prisoners. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the M16 and I prefer that outdated old piece of junk called the AK47. I've got a few of them.

that's what the US servicemen in Vietnam said when the M16 saw one of its first large scale deployments.. they preferred the 4x cheaper AKs over the M16s in the muddy climates, too!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The AUG series is definitely rather interesting... I almost got one of those a while back, but just couldn't get beyond the terrible trigger pull that really defined these bullpup designs for so long. I finally got my first (and currently only) bullpup when IWI released the Tavor here in the US. It still has some trigger pull issues (will never be as clean/crisp as a Geiselle two stage trigger in an AR), but it's considerably better than previous designs and ergonomically it feel like the Israelis designed this thing for be specifically. Everything about it is perfect.

new_right-vi.jpg

But I do agree with Ray that the 5.56 NATO round isn't all that when it comes to longer ranges... and we have a lot of wide open flat space here in North Dakota. Something with more oomph is needed when you really need to reach out a ways:

Ferret50_rt1000-vi.jpg

And when anything less than a belt-fed simply won't do... you have to break out the belt-fed. Because belt-fed!

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Greg, Geissele makes a drop in trigger pack for the Tavor. http://geissele.com/super-sabra-trigger-tavor.html

Get out your wallet, your welcome. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, Geissele makes a drop in trigger pack for the Tavor. http://geissele.com/super-sabra-trigger-tavor.html

Get out your wallet, your welcome. :)

Yeah, I've seen that. But it's still an issue with the inherently less crisp trigger linkage of the bullpup design. I'm sure it's better than the stock trigger pack... but it's not the same as their AR triggers. The Tavor is still a sweet rifle, of course. I have no plans to get rid of mine any time soon. :)

Cheers,

Greg

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AUG series is definitely rather interesting... I almost got one of those a while back, but just couldn't get beyond the terrible trigger pull that really defined these bullpup designs for so long. I finally got my first (and currently only) bullpup when IWI released the Tavor here in the US. It still has some trigger pull issues (will never be as clean/crisp as a Geiselle two stage trigger in an AR), but it's considerably better than previous designs and ergonomically it feel like the Israelis designed this thing for be specifically. Everything about it is perfect.

new_right-vi.jpg

But I do agree with Ray that the 5.56 NATO round isn't all that when it comes to longer ranges... and we have a lot of wide open flat space here in North Dakota. Something with more oomph is needed when you really need to reach out a ways:

Ferret50_rt1000-vi.jpg

And when anything less than a belt-fed simply won't do... you have to break out the belt-fed. Because belt-fed!

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Belt Fed!!!

I'm saving my pennies for a MK48....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize the F90 is just a slightly modified licensed copy of the Steyr Aug, which has been in production since 1978....

The current M16a4 and M4 are just as significantly modified as the original M16.... which is of the same era as the Steyr Aug.

Australia picked out a pretty sweet little rifle for their soldiers. Meanwhile the U.S. is still using a rifle designed nearly 50 years ago.

http://www.funker530.com/new-australian-defense-force-assault-rifle-in-action/

Link to post
Share on other sites

... many 223-224 rounds are not even legal for large game hunting in some states. Not that I want to be hit with one, but even a 6mm/243 is far superior in my mind.

I may be wrong, but I thought the 556 round was one of those poor decisions, like the original F111 that came out of the McNamara DOD.

As this thread has covered a lot of topics, I have a 223 Rem barrel for my TC Contender, and it is great as a handgun round...! However if I am serious about shooting 22 at any range, I will stick with my 220 Swift!

Cheers! -Piggy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong, but I thought the 556 round was one of those poor decisions, like the original F111 that came out of the McNamara DOD.

To me, it seems like the same deal with adopting 9x19mm as the standard sidearm cartridge. Yes, the gun can hold more ammo in the mag and the warrior can carry more rounds on them in combat, all because of the smaller size compared to previous service cartridges, but then you get into the issue of diminished marksmanship - it's a lot easier to just keep pulling the trigger when you know there are plenty of more rounds to fire.

Plus, I think the 5.56 NATO was adopted partially as a result of typical engagement ranges dropping considerably in WW2 with all the house to house fighting in the urban areas. I seem to recall reading in more than one place that the 5.56 NATO cartridge was intended for engagements of no more than 300 yards. Or somewhere around there anyhow - the point being that it was assumed that the days of the 1000 yard engagements were over so there was far less of a need for larger/more powerful service cartridges... outside of sniper applications, of course, which is also why most sniper platforms don't even use something as small/limited as the 5.56 NATO. But the fighting in the desert has really demonstrated the limitations of the 5.56 NATO round. I'm sure most warriors would gladly take something in 7.62 NATO (or even .300 BLK) if it was made widely available to them.

The 62gr. M855/SS109 loading gave the 5.56 NATO some addition reach/oomph, but it still wouldn't be my first choice in a service cartridge if given other (better) options.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that the more the merrier philosophy is a poor one, when downrange energy has to be compromised to get it. While I own my share of 9mm(s) simply due to the availability of the round, I don't think it is good for much really. My choice these days is the 40 S&W which when loaded correctly can almost match the energy of the 357 Mag. I see the 40 S&W as a optimum round, very much like I view the 308.

I used to shoot autos in IPSC and major 9 was a real issue at the time. I never felt that it was safe to shoot at those pressures! Instead I shot the 38 Super (Automatic) which was the prevailing choice at the time, giving resurgence to that rather strange round. The 38 Super, not a rimless cartridge is really a bit of a redheaded stepchild, but the custom auto builders could really build a nice 1911 around the cartridge and that is what I used. It lasted until the "double stack" magazine pistols hit the range and that was caused me to lose interest in the sport.

I have a beautiful custom Delta Elite built by Paul Liebenburg (sp), the inventor of the 40 S&W and I would have preferred it (today) in that cartridge as the 10mm is too long for the 1911 (MHO). At the time, Paul was building a wildcat called the Centimeter, a trimmed and reamed 10mm, but at the rate I was going through brass, it made no sense to make custom brass for the pistol.

He actually finished that pistol for me after going to work for S&W where they shortly thereafter introduced the 40 S&W.

Tell me Greg (or anyone) do you have any experience with the 338 Lapua? I have long wanted to build a really long range magazine fed bolt action and I have been considering building one around the Lapua. My thoughts were to get a barreled Stiller action and just build the rest of it myself but I don't know if I am up for the hassle of it. Savage makes some reasonably priced stock rifles and of course there are plenty of places to get full custom builds but I don't want to spend that kind of money. The optics alone are pretty pricey.

Cheers! -R

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5.56 definitely has it's advantages and disadvantages. Some of the advantages I learned over the years from both military and civilian use.

  1. weight- A soldier can carry more rounds of 5,56 than .308-7.62. Weight is a huge deal to soldiers taking into consideration how much gear your carrying just in body armor, weapon, ammo, canteen, helmet etc etc. Ounces add up to pounds very fast.
  2. Wound vs kill- When the bullet hits tissue it tumbles and creates a "Magic Bullet" effect. You get shot in the gut and it comes out the shoulder so to speak. Primarily the bullet maims rather than kills. In battlefields this is great because the theory is an enemy is wounded and 1-2 others disengage to help their wounded. So that greatly reduces the number of enemy combatants firing in your direction.
  3. Cycle time between mag changes- yeah, 3 gunners and guys on the range show very fast mag changes. In combat it doesn't happen that fast. empty gun in the middle of combat is a vulnerable time, fumbling for mags etc. Advantage to the guy with a 30rd mag vs a 20rd .308.Yeah the AK holds 30.
  4. Accuracy- The 5.56 with optics is a deadly combo inside 300yds. Which has been found to be the most common range troops engage and part of the reason the 5.56 was selected in the first place. Sorry, no matter what gun you shove a 7.62x39 into, the bullet is not as stable or group as tight as 5.56 and there are a number of video's out there proving it.

Disadvantages that I can think of.

  1. Report- As a soldier the pop zing of smaller bullets don't cause as much worry as hearing someone shooting a big .308 or larger bullet. Knew a guy once that took an ak round in his hip and you could stick a soda bottle in the wound. Gets the attention of soldiers real quick. But that is also an advantage, while everyone focuses to shut down the big gun, the guys with the smaller report calibers can go unnoticed longer.
  2. Kinetic energy- the 5.56 is an under powered cartridge to begin with. Designed to compliment a 20in barrel of the M16A1, we now see barrels on weapons platforms down to 7'1/2 with an average length of 16inches. One can argue ammo has changed and the fps isn't dropped that much but what is the kinetic energy like on the receiving end? This is where I believe the bullpups have an advantage being able to go a full 18-20 inch length to utilize the full burn of the cartridge while maintaining a shorter profile for close quarters and the effectiveness for longer range engagement. This also reflects back to the ability to maim vs kill. At close quarters, a large caliber that can stop an attacker in their tracks is highly desirable.
  3. Bullet weight-while lighter it does not have the ballistics to stabilize at the distance of the .308/7.62x54 which can easily reach out to 1000yds. (But better range accuracy than the7.62x39 of the AK)
Link to post
Share on other sites

... many 223-224 rounds are not even legal for large game hunting in some states. Not that I want to be hit with one, but even a 6mm/243 is far superior in my mind.

I may be wrong, but I thought the 556 round was one of those poor decisions, like the original F111 that came out of the McNamara DOD.

As this thread has covered a lot of topics, I have a 223 Rem barrel for my TC Contender, and it is great as a handgun round...! However if I am serious about shooting 22 at any range, I will stick with my 220 Swift!

Cheers! -Piggy

I'd include the 22-250, very similar to the 220 Swift and a heck of a nice round for long range. Have the 22-250 in a Ruger varment rifle, and it's a great round/gun combo when you really need something cheap with a lot of range and accuracy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me Greg (or anyone) do you have any experience with the 338 Lapua? I have long wanted to build a really long range magazine fed bolt action and I have been considering building one around the Lapua. My thoughts were to get a barreled Stiller action and just build the rest of it myself but I don't know if I am up for the hassle of it. Savage makes some reasonably priced stock rifles and of course there are plenty of places to get full custom builds but I don't want to spend that kind of money. The optics alone are pretty pricey.

I have no direct experience with the .338 Lapua, other than a couple of years ago I was toying with the idea of getting something chambered up for either that round or the .300 WM. But then I started looking at all the costs involved, after already having gotten into .50 BMG, and I ended up moving on to the next "gee I'd like to have X" moment. If I were more of a hardcore long range match shooter I might consider it, but even then there are still some pretty amazing things you can do with the .50 BMG loads at 1000 yards when needed. The .50 BMG might not be as accurate as the .338 Lapua, but its effective range is a lot greater (.338 Lapua can kill a deer out to 1800 yards, while the .50 BMG can reach out to 3300 yards to do the same thing) and... well... there's just something really super cool about having a .50 BMG rifle. .50 Browning MFing MG, man! smile.png

Since I know I'm not interested in long range precision competition, I think I would only get into .338 Lapua if I had more money than sense and had nothing better to spend it on. smile.png

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "EF88", as they've called it, is just a Steyr AUG with a laundry list of modifications.

The AUG itself has been in service since 1978. They didn't reinvent the wheel here, just like the US Army isnt reinventing it when choosing to continue to use the M4 and M16 which also have had quite a few modifications since the original weapons came into service.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Thank you, I was just going to post something to that effect.

BTW, the M4 varies in several significant ways from the original Armalite AR-15.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope they managed to fix that problem of the weapon "accidentally" firing when riding in armoured transport vehicles. Thales is the same company that sold the army dud grenades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.