Carbines are known to have bigger kick back than M16.Originally posted by alphanumeric:what weapon will our guards and commandos use? coz i have no doubt that the infantry will use the new sar21... and sometimes i wonder why the singapore government chose to go ahead with the sar21 instead of getting the m4? besides not needing to zero the sar21, what are the other advantages?
the grenade launcher on the fn2000 sounds good. led indicators to tell u when the gun is pointed at the correct angle to ur target. . . maybe i out of date, but this is the first grenade launcher i heard of that does this. . .Originally posted by 21Alpha:I wanna the FN F2000!!! Can shoot left-hand and right hand. Tho I sometimes wonder how they do their IA drill since the bolt face and chamber can't be seen...
I'm still wondering how they manage the ejection of cartriges thru a tube. Must see it in action.Originally posted by 21Alpha:I wanna the FN F2000!!! Can shoot left-hand and right hand. Tho I sometimes wonder how they do their IA drill since the bolt face and chamber can't be seen...
I heard the same comments abt the OICW also. Too bulky and all. I personally feel that technology alone does not totally define the rifle. It may be high-tech, but the end-user must be satisfied with it. Look at the M-21. They still kept it in service as a sniper rifle until the SR-25 came along. It was used in almost every imaginable conflict since it first came about as an accurized M-14 to fit the sniper role.Originally posted by alphanumeric:interestingly, 2 other rifles have been dragged into this discussion, the ociw and the fn2000...i heard that majority of the soldiers who tested out these two weapons system found them to be heavy and bulky... not the ideal weapon to carry around...
sometimes, i just wonder, why not issue everybody with a minimi... the firepower will be awesome... but i guess it's not gonna be economical right? haha
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/29/ngun29.xmlOriginally posted by alphanumeric:sometimes, i just wonder, why not issue everybody with a minimi... the firepower will be awesome... but i guess it's not gonna be economical right? haha
do you seriously think singapore will be short on ammo should there be a war? i doubt so. but to have everyone on minimi is not feasible for large troops. maybe for commandos/special units.Originally posted by Tango1:I heard the same comments abt the OICW also. Too bulky and all. I personally feel that technology alone does not totally define the rifle. It may be high-tech, but the end-user must be satisfied with it. Look at the M-21. They still kept it in service as a sniper rifle until the SR-25 came along. It was used in almost every imaginable conflict since it first came about as an accurized M-14 to fit the sniper role.
I would say get rid of the M-16 in service, but keep the carbines. Maybe its a personal liking, but I feel that the carbines haven't really outlived their usefulness yet. Its still good for armoured units (currently using carbines also) or even in combat support roles in the Arty (except 21SA, which already has that), Mil. Police, logistics, etc...Not to mention, Cdos and BRCs would still find the weight of the weapon attractive as compared to the SAR-21.
Give everyone a Minimi? Sure...and when the next shooting war comes along, the QM would run outta bullets for everyone in the field. We would technically lose the war becos' of ammo shortage lol![]()
Those claims were made from the results when they pitted two squads against each other during war games, one armed with the OICW, the other with the old M-16/M203 junk. And guess who won?Originally posted by dkhoo:The 500% lethality claims of the OICW are just that -- claims. They have not been demonstrated. The OICW (or XM29) will be a worthwhile weapon if and only if it is really that effective. Otherwise it will be a clumsy piece of junk that the grunts will hate to hump around. I for one am certain that the carbine part is useless in the current design since the barrel is too short to produce fragmentation effects from 5.56mm ammo.
We may not run outta ammo, but the possibility exist. Nothing is infinite in a shooting war. Its not even about that. In a conflict, rear-echelon supplies always screw up. That's a fact of modern warfare. Even the U.S. army in Iraq faced resupply problems during their push to Baghdad. I agree that its not feasible to have everyone hump a SAW. And to take your point further, we may even examine marksmanship. The average bullet expenditure in Vietnam was nearly 50,000 rds for 1 casualty. So imagine everyone on a full automatic weapon.Originally posted by tiggersgd:do you seriously think singapore will be short on ammo should there be a war? i doubt so. but to have everyone on minimi is not feasible for large troops. maybe for commandos/special units.
No weapon is fool-proof. I don't doubt your claims but I would argue that technology does not account for most eventualities that might occur in a shooting war. So its a high-tech weapon. So? It still requires the individual grunt to go out there and face the enemy to use it. What happens when its damaged? As compared to replacing an ordinary assault rifle? A guerilla armed with an AK have a good chance of getting an OICW-armed soldier too. Its just a matter of tactics. Even the best technology out there in Iraq has not prevented weekly ambushes of the coalition forces, or bagged the head honcho...yet.Originally posted by Singapore Tyrannoasaur:Those claims were made from the results when they pitted two squads against each other during war games, one armed with the OICW, the other with the old M-16/M203 junk. And guess who won?
The OICW squad only lost one man while the M-16/203 side was wiped out. Basically because a smart computer programmed round and a weapon that can shoot around corners without unnecessary exposure in the hands of a grunt under cover is a lot more effective then an M-16/203 which is a dumb weapon that requires you to be expose to get a clear shot.
I think that's demostration enough.
Short of zapping each other with live ammo, there is no closer and better way of making your claims.
Note that this is a WARGAME. They simply ASSUMED that the OICW would perform according to specifications and then saw what would happen. It would be equally valid for me to have a wargame where all my men were able to fly, invisible, invulnerable to 120mm tank shells and able to detect and snipe people between the eyes at 5km. I would find my men would utterly destroy the opposition, and therefore decide to design powered armor that would allow my men to do all of this.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Those claims were made from the results when they pitted two squads against each other during war games, one armed with the OICW, the other with the old M-16/M203 junk. And guess who won?
The OICW squad only lost one man while the M-16/203 side was wiped out. Basically because a smart computer programmed round and a weapon that can shoot around corners without unnecessary exposure in the hands of a grunt under cover is a lot more effective then an M-16/203 which is a dumb weapon that requires you to be expose to get a clear shot.
I think that's demostration enough.
Short of zapping each other with live ammo, there is no closer and better way of making your claims.
Yeah...I tried taking out the buttstock before and shooting it...hurts like crazy...and that was only blanks too!! ouchOriginally posted by Silenthunter:do you know you are take the butt out of a carbine and still shoot.
of course there will still be a rod sticky out. I feel that the inacurracy of the carbine is due to the flimsy butt and the short barrel.... 300m Eff range.....
gosh you guys sounded like SAR-21 salesmen.....hahaha
joke![]()