It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran sniper rifle acquisitions

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Big deal IMO I can buy a better .50 cal rifle as a civilian in the US.

Russia has also been selling anti-materiel (sniper) rifles for years with their 12.7x108 mm which Iran could have gotten its hands on with ease. That would also slice through any body armor on the planet from long range.




posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh

Originally posted by northwolf
Why shouldn't Steyr sell to Iran, was there an UN embargo going on 2005? Should all companies concider interests of USA, before making export sales? Why should an Austrian company care that it's products might kill americans?


Perhaps because Iran:

1. Supports terrorism
2. Denies the holocaust
3. Has stated publicly that the nation of Israel should be "wiped off the map"
4. Has an atrocious human rights record

If you rely on the UN as your moral compass, you would end up selling your soul to the Devil.

Wise up - this isn't just about the US.


Northwolf - i'm with you on this one.

1. No embargo. If their support for terrorism was such an immediate threat, they would have been restricted by force if necessary. They weren't.

2. So? Holocaust 'denial' is something thats illegal in Europe. Many people in the rest of the world refer to it as 'revisionism'. You're simply offended by someone's opinion.

3. Again - So? The Jews and Arabs have been going at it forever. Statements like that, regarding a country the Arabs do not recognize as legitimate, are nothing new. Have you not paid attention to some of the charms that have come out of Sharon's mouth?

4. Like we don't here? We have more people incarcerated than any other country. We try to go out and 'liberate' other countries peoples, while a huge majority of our own are suffering and persecuted. How do you think the Libyans felt when we left them for dead? How about our soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan with the weapons we provided them to fight Russia with? How do you think the Iraqis felt when we welcomed Saddam to our land and presented him the key to Detroit? And how do you think they feel now that we've destroyed their government and opened them up to anarcy?

Politics are politics and we're no angels.

You need to wise up - this isn't just about the US.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by vinrock]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
Perhaps because Iran:

1. Supports terrorism
2. Denies the holocaust
3. Has stated publicly that the nation of Israel should be "wiped off the map"
4. Has an atrocious human rights record


1. So, Hasn't US armed terrorists in the past, should we stop selling them
2. Everyone should be allowed an opinion, even a wrong one (i'm getting pissed off about jews shouting holocaust, everytime someone doesn't please them, as ffs more russians died in camps during/after ww2 than jews)
3. Why should an Austrian comppany care?
4.So Does the USA, (Dresden, Vietnam, camps of your civil war... )

KPI
One legimate reason for Iran having all the weapons it wants is a fear of US agression, they do have the right to defend them selves. And once again, why should an Austrian comppany care for american lives, give me one good reason? Are your lives so much more valuable than Iranian?


Ps. I don't like Irans leadership, but then again i don't like any government with a religious agenda, but even a bad government of a sovreign country has its rights.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
you cannot feasibly hide a tracking device in the guns that would not be found by the Iranians. Also, defective functioning would be spotted straight away too. 50 cal ammo is very plantiful so no real scope for sabotage there either.


Do they xray the stocks when they get them?? you put a tracking chip or something like it in the stock when they are being cast



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Dragonovs were designed to give firing teams more range, it isn't a longrage sniper rifle. As someone said befor it is the person who pulls the triger that determines the outcome of the shot. AK-47s deal perfectly with US body armor, or any other body armor in the world, thats a FACT. I am confident that US snipers would blow the iranians heads off. "Lets hate Iran because it doesn't approve of Israel while Nazi criminals live in the USA". Also many of you seem to forget (or might not know) that Iran is the MOST extremist islamic country. Once at war EVER MAN, WOMAN, BOY AND GIRL will take up an AK-47 and fight, as been proven in their war against Iraq. Sniping won't play much of a role in this conflict. I'm talking about the behind enemy lines, lone sniping.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
America is Rapidly becoming the most right wing evengelical rabid war mongering nation on earth.


so explain the diff between state sponsored muslim and evangelical extremism?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spets
AK-47s deal perfectly with US body armor, or any other body armor in the world, thats a FACT.


No it doesn't. The ak-47 and it's 7.62x39 even in steel core is completly worthless against the modern American body armour. Infact the modern body armour can even take hits to the chest(on the ceramic plates) from a SVD rifle.



Originally posted by Spets
I am confident that US snipers would blow the iranians heads off.


I dought that very much it will be a one way street. it will work both ways and people from all sides will get hit by snipers both Iranians and Americans.



Originally posted by Spets
Also many of you seem to forget (or might not know) that Iran is the MOST extremist islamic country.


No its not. There really wasn't or Isn't a extreamist muslim country in the world aprt from afganistan when it was run by the taliban.

The Iranians are not extreamists they just don;t bow down to the world wide agenda in the middle east and refuse to be prostitutes for the west and Israel.

The west has carried out many terrorist acts against the Iranains before islamic terrorism even existed :



www.nytimes.com...

Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.


what is written above is solid proof that america has funded terrorism against muslims before muslims had ever touched even 1 american life. America has been launching terrorist attacks against muslims since the 1950's and thats not islamic propaganda this is information declassifyed by the Mi6 and NSA about operration TP-Ajax.

America created Islamic extreamism through it's own actions of the past which have set of a cascade of events over the last 60 years.



Originally posted by Spets
Once at war EVER MAN, WOMAN, BOY AND GIRL will take up an AK-47 and fight, as been proven in their war against Iraq.


This is not exactly Islamic but more to do with being nationalistic. Every nation has people that will fight to the death for there nation. Do you honestly think that if the Iranians where atheists that men, women would no longer fight for there nation. You must be living in a dream world if you think this is true. Nationalism is very high in Iran and remeber not every person is a muslim in Iran even the zorostanians would fight america if it invaded Iran.



Originally posted by Spets
Sniping won't play much of a role in this conflict. I'm talking about the behind enemy lines, lone sniping.


Yes it will. Iran can easiliy send snipers to surrounding country to sniper Americans. Just becuase americans don;t need to use a sniper rifle doesn't automatically mean sniper rifles become useless for everybody else.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Ok, i'll just go down the list.

"No it doesn't. The ak-47 and it's 7.62x39 even in steel core is completly worthless against the modern American body armour. Infact the modern body armour can even take hits to the chest(on the ceramic plates) from a SVD rifle. "


YES, an AK-47 is more than capable of going through US body armor. Just because US body armor "can" stop it doesn't mean it's 100%, plus if an AK is to use AP rounds which it can hold, that body armor becomes paper.

"I dought that very much it will be a one way street. it will work both ways and people from all sides will get hit by snipers both Iranians and Americans. "

I am merely doubting the training of the iranian sniper.

"No its not. There really wasn't or Isn't a extreamist muslim country in the world aprt from afganistan when it was run by the taliban. "

I don't know, maybe I am simply using the wrong words for what I am trying to say here. All i'm saying is that that is where the muslim law and way of life is strongest out of all the islamic countries. Base your opinion on whatever you want iqonx, I am telling you what I've been told by muslims themselvs. Have you ever lived in the middle east iqonx? I have, I've lived in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan for a total of 3-4 years of my life. That is what I was told by the people there, many of whom have families or ties in Iran or have been there themselves. Like I said, maybe i'm not using the right words, but here's my point; a rightouse muslim does not fear death. To kill a non-believer (a non muslim) is an act of heroism. If you are to fall in battle against a nonbeliever you will immidiately be sent to heaven. So yes, EVERY man women and child would be fighting. It has been proven by history Iqonx, as I have already said. That is what I know and I trust my sources.

"Yes it will. Iran can easiliy send snipers to surrounding country to sniper Americans. Just becuase americans don;t need to use a sniper rifle doesn't automatically mean sniper rifles become useless for everybody else. "

And consider the ability of a trained US sniper to hunt them down.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Bah, quit arguin' like boyfriend and girlfriend.

No it doesn't...

Yes it does!

I've got a feeling both of you are knowledgable in this topic and are just choosing to regard the AK's armor piercing capabilities in two different lights.

Example:

Maybe your average (sayin' maybe because I don't personally know this) 7.62x39 FMJ fired from a generic AK47 cannot pierce the currently issued US body armor, if fired directly into the chest when the trauma plate is in place.

Maybe your average 7.62x39 FMJ fired from a generic AK47 can peirce the currently issued US body armor, if fired directly into the chest when the trauma plate is not in place.

See what i'm sayin'? It's easier for me to learn this stuff when two guys like you are able to make different points that you can agree upon rather than just beating each other up because he sees things one way and he sees them the other way.

Here's my 2c back on thie convo: I would not want to get hit by a 7.62 no matter what. If that sort of round is stopped by soft shelled body armor, only a couple more hits in that area to render it useless. And it would be rediculous to have the mentality that we (the US) would be able to counter their snipers as if they were no threat at all.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by vinrock]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
7.62x53R currently available to Iraqi isurgents is mainly lead cored and loaded slow.... Properly loaded 7.62x53R AP rounds penetrate all available body armor from 300m, but even the insurgent rounds are lethal from 50m

Ak's 7.62x39 AP (Steel penetrator) is able to penetrate class III body armor from 50-100m

IIIA armor will stop both normal steel and lead core rounds from ranges above 50m

It's a grey zone on penetration from 15m to 50m, below 15m most 7,31x39 rounds will incapacitate a man in IIIA Armor


Source: Finnish Army Sniper Training (this mainly refers to Finnish and Russian ammunition)

[edit on 30-6-2006 by northwolf]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Thanks for sharing that northwolf.

The sad thing is that I have to admit that you're absolutely right about our POW camps during our Civil War. What we did to eachother was absolutely horrible and is something that nobody should ever repeat. What we did to Dresden was completely unnessesary as far as I can see. As sad as I am to admit it, the US has committed atrocities just like every other nation (except maybe the Swiss) on earth.

From the standpoint of an executive for a gunmaker, there's only one reason I can think of as to why you wouldn't want to sell to Iran. And that is that Iran is currently on bad footing with much of Europe and the US. This means that in the future, the US and certain European nations might not buy their guns.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
OK, here's a question people should also ask themselves, "How many arms deals with Iran do we not know about?" 50cal sniper rifles een sold to Iran just sounds to me like the Russian mafia (run in part by the goverment, during Soviet times aswell) sold plenty of weaponary to the country they were fighting; AKA afgan and chechnya. My point is that when you guys ask "why would we sell to the bad guys look at it this way; look at what a life of an american soldier costs the US army (maintaining him, paying and training him) add that up together. From that you subtract a fraction from the money looted from the country (a fraction equivelent to the soldier's money fraction out of the participating in the action) you'll probably find out that the loot surpases the money that is used to maintain him. I'm generalizing by the word loot: the oil, trade rights, or anything they impose onthe country to benifit from in $ in the future. Also somewhere along the way comes in the weapons trades. If the war isn't going as flawlessly as everyone always etimates it to be the goverments look to the arms deals to make up for the cahs they aren't going to get. Belive it or not plenty of times a goverment would supply arms to the country they are fighting. it's the same equation.

That is my theory, not a fact. Anyone else have any thoughts they'd like to share.


Sep

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spets
I don't know, maybe I am simply using the wrong words for what I am trying to say here. All i'm saying is that that is where the muslim law and way of life is strongest out of all the islamic countries.Base your opinion on whatever you want iqonx, I am telling you what I've been told by muslims themselvs. Have you ever lived in the middle east iqonx? I have, I've lived in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan for a total of 3-4 years of my life. That is what I was told by the people there, many of whom have families or ties in Iran or have been there themselves. Like I said, maybe i'm not using the right words, but here's my point; a rightouse muslim does not fear death. To kill a non-believer (a non muslim) is an act of heroism. If you are to fall in battle against a nonbeliever you will immidiately be sent to heaven. So yes, EVERY man women and child would be fighting. It has been proven by history Iqonx, as I have already said. That is what I know and I trust my sources.


I lived in Tehran for 10 years, as well as in several small Turkish cities for around a year. Between the two, in Turkey, people were a lot more religious than Iranians. You have to remember that the current Iranian population is one of the youngest in the world. They were not the ones who fought in the first Persian Gulf War. They weren't born then. Iran was the first country in Asia to introduce a secular, democratic constitution. Islamic laws are not enforced in anyway as harshly as they are in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, especially ever after Khatami was elected in 1997.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spets
Iran is the MOST extremist islamic country. Once at war EVER MAN, WOMAN, BOY AND GIRL will take up an AK-47 and fight, as been proven in their war against Iraq. Sniping won't play much of a role in this conflict. I'm talking about the behind enemy lines, lone sniping.


In the Iran-Iraq war human wave attacks you would have been lucky to get a AK-47. Thousands marched off to get mowed down by Iraqi machine guns with little more then a plastic key around their necks (they were told was the key to paradise) and a copy of the Koran.

Not like that was a great tactic it did move the tide into Irans favor at first but once the US stepped in to give aide to Iraq Iran had no chance of taking over Iraq (exporting the revolution) as they planned.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
OK OK I have read many of your posts and although this weapon is probably a vast improvement over older 50cal's the Iranians already have. It is still no worse then what they already had.

It is the weapons not openly bought that are the problem.
I suppose you guys have never heard of gun smiths making copies. Just about any gun you can get anywhere there is some guy in the muslim world making his own version.

So really this is deal has little effect one way or the other on the availability of long range sniper rifles to Iran or any anti-US insurgents.

And lastly about body armor if your shot in the head you know it does not do much good and guess where snippers aim if they want to guaranty a kill??
Even the newest The standard issue Kevlar helmet still does not stop a direct hit from a 30cal (7.62mm) sniper or even AK47 round (if the shooter is good enough to hit your head with a standard AK47.

So really it is a not much use arguing about who has what or how good body armor is even when it comes to tank armor when one makes a thicker armor the other makes a more powerful way to penetrate it. If you can not make a tank impenetrable why would you think you can make impenetrable body armor there is always going to be another more powerful gun or round that makes it useless.

Body armor is meant to offer some protection from small arms fire and shrapnel not make you a walking tank or robbo cop or super man that bullets bounce off.

being a solider is a dangerous job and always will be no matter what war or military action your in. The biggest threat in Iraq and Afghanistan to US troops is the fact that they are there and it is IEDs not sniper or small arms fire that is the number one cause of injuries and death. ANd let's not forget that those that attacked the US on 911 were not Iranian or Iraqis or even directly from Afghanistan or Pakistan they were Saudi as in Saudi Arabia you know the guy we buy all that oil from.
Remember Saudi Arabia's leaders may be friends of the US because the Saudi kings and upper class make millions off the oil sales but the average Saudi is a very devout muslim and there are many extremist in Saudi Arabia and it is very easy to convince a young Saudi not benefitting from the oil wealth of his own country that the US is to blame for his fate. Every one of the 911 terrorist were saudi's the people who planned the attack were Saudi. SO WHY IS IT WE ATTACKED IRAQ. the only reason we invaded Iraq the first time was because the Kuwaitis and the Saudi government both of which are monarchies with a very poor civil rights record. Felt Saddam Husain was a threat to them and their oil. So please don't even try and say we are in Iraq to defend civil rights.


[edit on 22-1-2010 by mfour1234]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by planeman
 


Man that is a nice Rifle. I've used Styer weapons, they are TOP quality and so accurate it's almost a miracle. In the hands of a well trained Iranian Sniper, it could cause a hell of a lot of damage and hold off entire companies of men.

The US uses the Barret .50 Semi auto sniper rifle which is comparable in many ways. The higher rate of fire makes it far deadlier, however.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join