The Israeli armed forces has been through a number of different rifles during various conflicts in previous years; FN FALs, AK47/AKMs, Galils, and M-16s (both the A1 and newer A2 variant, the A2 being vastly superior to it's predecessor). After putting all these rifles through rigorous real-time combat testing the Israeli armed forces in previous years has chosen to abandon their Israeli-made Galil rifles (except for reserve troops) for Colt's M-4 5.56mm (a carbine version of the M-16-A2). Now the Israelis know their shit when it comes to war which brings me to the comclusion that the M-4 and most likely M-16-A2 must be an extremely good piece of kit, however, I wonder would they have tried out (and possibly even adopted) the Steyr AUG if it wasn't manufactured in the same country that Adolf Hitler was born in? I don't recall ever seeing Israeli troops using Heckler & Koch weapons either.

As for what would I chose out of the M16A2 and Steyr AUG I'd go for the M-16 purely on the basis that it's a lot more combat-proven than the AUG. Although like someone else stated earlier in this thread I'd rather have a H&K G36 than either of them, even tho it hasn't been tested in combat yet I have alot of faith in Heckler & Koch.

They should have called it a hk aug and then every one would like it :P
If australia goes along with george w on the iraq thing than it might get some battle testing.
All the countrys that use the aug havent really had any wars resently only a few peace keeping missions and thats not a test at all. Its a good thing australia didnt adopt the SA-80,plauged by realiablity issues,the scopes too powerfull,its can fall apart with a bit of rough handling,and its heavy.

Do you know what the ultimate reason would be for chosing a M-4 over a Steyer? Money. Belive me if it wouldn't be for the fact that Steyers cost so much more countries would have them.

The one draw back to the bullpup design is that it ejects shells in ones face if he has to corner to his right.

I like the styer and i like the m-16. Iv held the styer and its a nice rifle. its mags are made from clear plastic so u can see how many bullets are inside. Its not too heavy and the little handrest can be folded down so u can grip it with ur hand along the barrel. I watched a small millitary exercise staged by the army up in brisbane and there very quite guns. The gun i am impressed with is the minimi (sp?). That little guy just sat back with his gun (the new ones are scoped too) and he never let his finger off the trigger. an entire box mag with out a break. But i dont like the new 5.56mm bullet. Its doesnt have any real whack. If i still had to go to combat i might even pick a vietnam era rifle.

If i still had to go to combat i might even pick a vietnam era rifle.

Like an m16?
Modern assult rifles dont have larger calibers because 7.62mm cartiriges are excessive and the kick is powerfull so going full auto is hard to control and the smaller a cartrige the more rounds you can carry.
mabey they should have a 6mm cartridge.

I like vietnam era rifles because they have power. in mog during the seige (kinda) the car-15 or m-16s or what ever they used (5.56mm) didnt do enough damage. they shot some people 6 times with out them being taken down. the bullets would go right through with a little exit wound and unless it hit an organ, it didnt worry them (maybe later it did). However there was a man there with a vietnam era rifle. When he shot some one the went down with one shot and they stayed down. i kinda like the SLR.

also im not really into full auto unless its a support weapon. its a waste of bullets.
I think the newest m-16 doesnt have full auto anymore any way. only semi-auto and 3-burst.

they made 5.56 rounds because they wound people and that is worse in a war because they have to take them back behind the lines
to get better and that uses up money time and resources. Although little third world armys (usually who america fight now days)
probably woundnt give a shit and would just leave them there.
Were you in somalia?

I'd say the AUG was chosen for its accuracy, scope and range. Australia has many large open spaces, so this weapon would be suited to a defnesive role. just an opinion, is all.

how right you are rangoon. furthermore the idea of wounding being more effective than killing is a bullshit doctrine no matter who you are fighting. The best equiped and funded armys in the world including our own may have 4 or 6 people at the most serving a company size element (over 100 men). That means that at best the principal of wounding will take out an extra 6% of the enemy force.

One thing that the wounding doctrine dose not take into consideration is that a wounded man retains a fair amount of combat effectiveness. Police departments as well as federal law enforcemnet have found this out the hard way and as a result have switched to larger caliber weapons (larger than 9mm).

One only needs to look as far as the Platt and Mattox incident to see this idea applied. They killed 3 and wounded 8 federal agents while being peppered with 9mm and .38 specail rounds.

Who are Platt and Mattox? They were in america right probably didnt make it to aus. Has anyone heard about that charter against fragmentating and tumbling bullets? apparently most western countrys have singed this and cant uses hollow points or tumbling bullets in a war. Police still use them though. The ak74 has a 5.45(?) bullet and to make up for the smaller size has one end of the bullet heavier so when it comes out it tumbles. You think that would make your accuracy go down the shitter.

its strange i was talking to a vietnam vet about tumbeling bullets. he said the first armilites used them. They would do tremendous damage to what ever they hit but even do damage if they missed. he said the shockwave was enough to knock u over and more.

how the fuck does a bullet knock you over if it doesnt even hit you? Still it seams that it is a easy matter you changing 5.56mm bullets to tumble then you would have a devistating bulet on unarmoured tagets or if you need it an change back to the original armour peircing bullet. No need to change caliber.

Hmmmm, ild have to say the Steyr aye, not that ive fired one or an M-16. The Steyr has a pistol scope for a reason, the steyr is an assault weapon not a sniper rifle of sorts and the scope is used for better accuracy at short range. they both look mean and ild like to get my hands on one or the other some way, can anyone supply me with one free of charge ill be grateful lol (i wish) but hey dreams are free are they not??

quote:

---

he said the shockwave was enough to knock u over and more.

---

The common misconception of what's commonly refered to as "knockdown power".

Consider this, simple physics, whatever force my firearm applies to the target, is also applied to the shooter. Therefore if a single shot were to throw you five feet in the the air, it would do the same to the shooter.

It wouldn't be uncommon to see a individual take a 12 guage slug, take a few steps foward, spin around and then collaspe on the ground from the loss of blood pressure. Primary cause of death, massize blood loss.

When a bullet hits mass, there is energy transfer. You'll often see for example a box of corbon .40S&W 1325fps and 526ft/lb. Now from my understanding, imagine a projectile close to a half inch in diameter (which will reliably expand to well over a half an inch) penatrating your body, transfering it's energy as it goes along through your tissue, organs, etc. leaving a sizable pernament and temporary cavity.

quote:

---

its strange i was talking to a vietnam vet about tumbeling bullets

---

There is no special bullet that "tumbles". The tumbling effect can be seen in many types of calibers, including a .45ACP and 12 gauge slug. Some 230gr .45ACP's will begin to tumble after 50+ yards (tumbling meaning the bullet will actually go end over end throughout it's trajectory).

Consider the average velocity (5.56NATO) the M16A2 puts out. Generally 3,300+fps at the muzzle. When this particular round comes into contact with a solid mass, it tends to yaw (switching angle), thereby causing more internal damange. The standard military M185 5.56NATO ball ammo is designed to penatrate slightly and then fragment causing a significant wound channel. Significant when considering the bullet diameter of .223

Although if more penatration is desired, the SS109 5.56NATO (steel penatrator) can be utilized. There were plenty of impressive penatration results out to distances of 300-500meters, although i do not recall the specifics.

.223 is SAAMI (civilan spec) and 5.56 is NATO (military spec). The only difference between the two is the casing. The 5.56NATO round is designed to have a higher operating pressure. Therefore it is not reccomened to shoot 5.56 through a rifle chambered specifically for .223

quote:

---

but even do damage if they missed

---

lol, only if you send one downrange and hit your own troops.

quote:

---

he said the shockwave was enough to knock u over and more

---

lol, thanks.. i needed a good laugh.

Only in hollywood.

the original M16 had a 1:12 twist barrel which was not a fast enough twist rate to stabalize the light 45gr. (? i am prety sure they started out with 45 gr and then went to 63gr) bullets. This resulted in a weapon that sent bullets toumbling down range.

At close range it is possible that the toumbling bullets could do more dammage but out at longer ranges they were useless.

I had a friend who was in the brown water navy who said that the VC would just overrun their positions unless they had a 7.62 around. He also said that people hit by the tiny M16 rnds would maintain a high percentage of their combat effectiveness.

5.56NATO by all means is not a inferior round. This projectile does cause significant and serve wound channels.

People can debate the 5.56 vs 7.62 all they like but i suppose bottom line it all comes down to shot placement.

I assuming shot placement is wether you can get a hit with it or not. Dosnt matter how powerfull your gun is if you cant hit shit you might as well have an air rifle. Am i right?

[This message has been edited by Rangoon (edited 11-15-2002).]

Yep.