The Glory Might of the XM29. - Page 5

Ace Oliveira · #41 08-11-2009, 06:41 PM

Please talk more about military failures, please Vangelis.

Nyles · #42 08-11-2009, 07:33 PM

How about the Ross rifle? The Brits wouldn't sell us Lee-Enfields during the Boer War, so we decided that we should set up domestic production in Canada in case we ever found ourselves at the bottom of the list for new weapons during a war again. Great idea, but instead of just building the proven Lee-Enfield in Canada, we adopted a very advanced (for the turn of the century) sporting and target rifle.

The Ross was and remains just about the most accurate military rifle ever made, but that was about all the good you can say about it. It's long, it's heavy, it jams, it wasn't until the Mk.III that they put a decent magazine on it, and the Mk.III was also the model where you could put the bolt together wrong and still fire it! You had to be profoundly stupid to do it, since it look alot of force to get it into the weapon that way, but never underestimate the supidity of a panicked untrained Private. We ditched it for the SMLE in 1915, but by then half the CEF were carrying Lee-Enfields they scavenged, bartered for or flat out stole from British troops.

Excalibur · #43 08-12-2009, 04:54 AM

Speaking of the Brits, I think a few of us would know about how slow they were in adopting firearms to catch up with the time. After WWII when the US and Russia already were on assault rifles with full auto, it took them nearly a decade after to adopt the L1A1 rifle and that was in semi. Took them longer to get the SA-80 and then a while after that for them to fix the problems with it. And I keep reading about the problems with the US when it comes to the infantry rifle, development and deployment, the British had a lot of problems in that area.

I always joke on that's the reason why their SAS is the best in the world of Special Forces, because their regular army seem to suck mostly because of not getting what they want equipment wise.

AdAstra2009 · #44 08-12-2009, 05:19 AM

I think it the XM-29 can still be a valuable weapon on the battlefield but not as a service rifle(seeing as the XM-29 would be too cumbersome to wield as a service rifle) but more as a niche like how someone in the squad carries a Machine Gun instead of a rifle.

Excalibur · #45 08-12-2009, 04:03 PM

Well if they design a grenade launcher like the XM-29 but put it in the size of an M203. I mean, the reason why the 203 was invented was because they dont have a guy that specifically a grenade specialist, so why would anyone want to carry just this huge heavy piece of shit? A SAW, we can all understand but that's not comparable to carrying a heavy grenade launcher

Ace Oliveira · #46 08-12-2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Speaking of the Brits, I think a few of us would know about how slow they were in adopting firearms to catch up with the time. After WWII when the US and Russia already were on assault rifles with full auto, it took them nearly a decade after to adopt the L1A1 rifle and that was in semi. Took them longer to get the SA-80 and then a while after that for them to fix the problems with it. And I keep reading about the problems with the US when it comes to the infantry rifle, development and deployment, the British had a lot of problems in that area.

I always joke on that's the reason why their SAS is the best in the world of Special Forces, because their regular army seem to suck mostly because of not getting what they want equipment wise.

The British army sucks now? What's next? The canadian army sucks too?
Also, the SA80 is an awesome rifle. So does the L1A1. And the US only got an full auto service rifle in 1957 and even then, the M14 sucked ass on full automatic because of the huge recoil, so the Soldiers and Marines used it as a semi-auto rifle ala the M1 Garand. The soviets got the AK-47 in service in 1949. In 1949 the service rifle of the US was the M1 Garand. We only got a full-auto gun that was able to be fired in full automatic in 1964 when the XM16E1 became the standard rifle of the US Army. The Marines' service rifle was the M14 untill 1968 when it got replaced in the USMC by the M16A1. So we got stuck with an two semi autos untill 1964. The British got an semi-auto in 1954.

Vangelis · #47 08-12-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I mean, the reason why the 203 was invented was because they dont have a guy that specifically a grenade specialist, so why would anyone want to carry just this huge heavy piece of shit?

Actually, the M203 was invented as part of the SPIW project to be part of a different huge heavy piece of shit; it was part of AAI's proposal and was originally rejected for being too simple. It was basically the only remotely practical thing that came out of the entire project.

The general idea of the OICW doesn't seem to have been to replace the M203 as issue weapon; while originally the idea was for every soldier to carry one, with later concepts the idea seems to have been for a few soldiers in the squad to have them and the rest more standard rifles, presumably still with the M203 or more likely the M320. The result would probably have been similar to a designated marksman increasing the squad's effective range or an automatic rifleman increasing their firepower; you don't take away the ability for the rest of the squad to fire bullets, you just have one guy who can do it better in a specific way.

And obviously, the plan was that it not be huge and heavy, that's why it was cancelled when it became clear that it would be for the forseeable future.

k9870 · #48 08-12-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

the SA80 is an awesome rifle

I heard they are quite accurate, at least when they actually work.

Excalibur · #49 08-12-2009, 09:33 PM

I heard they jammed a lot until H&K fixed them

Nyles · #50 08-12-2009, 10:03 PM

I've shot the SA-80A2 extentsively while training with the Brits, and I never had a jam. Including using blanks with a loose BFA. It is a very reliable weapon, and fairly accurate even with iron sights.

That said it has just about the worse human engineering I've ever seen on a rifle. It's uncomfortable to use and all the controls are awkward to use. So in summation, I like it as a soldier, but as a serious shooter I hate it. I'd take it into combat if I had to, but I'd rather have my C7.

And I have to say, my experience of working with the Brits is they have the best non-coms in the world, and their CFR officers are really good. But some of the officers I worked with were definate candidates for the upper class twit of the year award. I think they're a great army - after training with them I sure as shit wouldn't want to fight them!