New guns jamming in combat!

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Same question I asked.

I know Barrett has a new one (6.8mm? I forgot), and I know Heckler and Koch has a new one (4.5mm?), but i am wondering if this is even a new rifle - maybe in is the 5.56 FN SAW? I hear the SAW was having major issues in Iraq. Not only did it jam a lot (To the point where it needed disassembly in the middle of combat to clear it!!!), but that the barrels frequently warped. I bet this is the gun if I had to guess. I know that a typical SAW user carries 3 barrels into combat now - sad.

-S

I have the Barrett 468 upper conversion. I just attach it to an AR-15 lower. I've probably put 800 rnds thru it and haven't had any problem.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I have the Barrett 468 upper conversion. I just attach it to an AR-15 lower. I've probably put 800 rnds thru it and haven't had any problem.

I don't think that is the problem weapon, and your upper is not the full gun anyway. I think I want a .22 upper too, but that is another story for another thread.

Anyway, age could be a factor on the SAW - and that goes along with some of the posts above about old worn out weapons still in use:

The FN Minimi has an excellent reputation on reliability and firepower, and the latest reports on failures of M249 SAW weapons in Iraq are attributed to the age of the weapons used - most of the current issue M249 in US Army are more than 10 years old and quite worn out.

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg17-e.htm

-S

[Heibges]

Don't you mean rifles?

Guns are only on tanks, and in the artillery.

All you pogues with the word "gun" in your post drop and give me 50.

[Tchocky]

Ah, but some tanks and artillery use rifled guns.....

Aren't H&K offering a new receiver for the M-4 that's more effective in sand etc?

[Heibges]

Rifled or not, if it's big and bad, it's still referred to as a gun.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

thats because when i was first made they switched the firing cartridge to a different caliber so it fired longer but the charge that was used to fire the bullet was dirty and not clean, if they stuck to the stock cartridge designed for the m16 they wudda had no ideal condition jams.

The powder problem was solved long ago, right after the vietnam war. They are much more reliable now.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Same question I asked.

I know Barrett has a new one (6.8mm? I forgot), and I know Heckler and Koch has a new one (4.5mm?), but i am wondering if this is even a new rifle - maybe in is the 5.56 FN SAW? I hear the SAW was having major issues in Iraq. Not only did it jam a lot (To the point where it needed disassembly in the middle of combat to clear it!!!), but that the barrels frequently warped. I bet this is the gun if I had to guess. I know that a typical SAW user carries 3 barrels into combat now - sad.

-S

Not too sure about Barrett, but H&K's is the new MP-7. Not a rifle. They had it on Futureweapons, and it fires the 4.5 (or was it 4.8?)mm rifle round. Pierces body armor and kevlar helmets with ease.


As for the SAW, they are replacing that already. They've got the M-240B Light Machine Gun (which is actually replacing the M-60E3), and the M-(I forgot the number) SAW to replace the M-249 SAW. The -240B uses the 7.62 NATO, and the new SAW uses the 5.56 NATO.

[Yahoshua]

I bet sand cuts on the bolt would solve quite a bit of the jamming problems on the Ar/M-16 variants, but I've yet to test that out. (Maybe I'll make it a future project).

But anyway, what firearm are you talking about? If it's the AR/M-16 variants then it really comes down to WHO made the parts: Factory spec. or aftermarket? This fact makes a WORLD of difference in reliability issues.

The aftermarket magazines and springs that the army ordered for use in Beretta sidearms are a good example of this. The army has learned to order factory spec. equipment when they need parts and accessories.

Militech will also make a big difference with problems relating to "dust gumming" in the action with sand and powder residue (however it's NOT a lube but a metal treatment application!!).

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

AK 47s FOR EVERYBODY!!!!, seriously only reason y america wont use the ak 47 is because russia will say "o so now u r using OUR weapons" then all the flaming will begin, america has THE best technology in the world for their airplanes etc, their guns r so high tech... yet they still jam by some lousy sand and dirt, while a gun made in the late 40's early 50's still better then those guns today, if america switched to ak47 anmd used their technology god knows wut kind of crazy high powered gun they wud have,

Actually, the AK-47 was an engineering compromise suited to Russian conditions. It was deliberately built "crudely" - big heavy bolt, wide tolerances ... etc. The nice thing is that it stops them from jamming, but the tolerances kill off long-range accuracy.

[Tchocky]

Ah yes, this was it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416

[Yahoshua]

With the avg. being 3-5 MOA at 100 meters (1 Minute of Angle = 1" at 100 meters), I'd say that kills ANY hope of accuracy!!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Heibges

Don't you mean rifles?

Guns are only on tanks, and in the artillery.

All you pogues with the word "gun" in your post drop and give me 50.

Southerners

[ASWnut101]

:rotfl: ...wait.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Actually, the AK-47 was an engineering compromise suited to Russian conditions. It was deliberately built "crudely" - big heavy bolt, wide tolerances ... etc. The nice thing is that it stops them from jamming, but the tolerances kill off long-range accuracy.

Pretty much spot on.

Other drawbacks:

the sights are too short

the 7.62x39 is a really bad bullet if you want to kill people. Seems to make a wound similar to a small calibre handgun

the 7.62x39 is too heavy and drops significantly at range.

Hitting anything with this gun at over 100 meters = act of frustration. I guess for the 1940's and 50's, it was rather sophisticated however.

-S

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

With the avg. being 3-5 MOA at 100 meters (1 Minute of Angle = 1" at 100 meters), I'd say that kills ANY hope of accuracy!!

Thats where sight picture comes in.