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.

 

Is the standard issue Australian Reserve Army rifle sufficient?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Time to get out all these things that have been bugging me. As far as I know what I'm about to say is public knowledge so it's ok for me to say it


I recently joined the aussie army reserves (rifleman) aka: weekend warriors (yeah yeah, laugh all ya want
). The standard issue steyr (sp?) to me seems underpowered? I've been told it has a 300m maximum range, is that 300m maximum kill range? Even if that's so isn't that a little underpowered?

For urban/close combat which is probably what the reserves are mostly faced with 300m kill range is probably adequate, but surely for general purpose combat, something with a longer kill range would be better? Do the regulars get a more powerfull weapon? Compared to the average enemies weaponry (I'm assuming AK47's), how does a steyr stack up?

Lastly on the steyr issue, exactly how much damage does 5.56mm ammunition cause? I don't have any experience with guns but I've heard that with something like a simple 9mm you could empty an entire clip into a person and it wouldn't stop them. What's the stopping power of a 5.56mm like? Or maybe I've just fallen for urban legends


Additionally, for any other aussies who have been in the reserves, what has your experience been like? I've joined with the idea of a possible (major) change in career. Have any of you gone on to bigger n better things? I passed the aptitude test with flying colours, have a VERY high tolerance for pain and aren't a strange to going nonstop for a good 48-72hrs to get a job done so I think I would be well suited for a special forces role (my dream, realistic or not).

I don't want to stuff around umming and ahhing, I want to get through basic training as quick as i can so i can get stuck into the advanced training, weaponry etc etc and possibly advance into a specialty role. Have any reserves done this? How hard was it? How long did it take to get where you are? What effect did it have on your civilian life?

Although unlikely they would be on this site, I'd especially like to hear from (REAL, not wanna-be) commandos (assumingly via U2U's or some other means as much of the information would probably be quite private) as to what you had to go through to become a commando, what to expect etc etc.

Anyways, cheers for wasting a coupla minutes reading this thread.




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Im going to join the Reserves when im old enough, earn me some tax free goodness.

How hard was it to get in?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I also would like to join when i am old enough.

I would like to become either an infantrymen or, if it is possible, to join a heavy armour corps. I intend to finish a Uni degree, and then apply for RMC.

I would appreciate, and i am sure others as well, if you could share your experiences.

As for your question....the Australian Army Reserves have been underpowered for a while now. Our Reserves represent 40% of our military, so why the lack of resources i do not know, but i guess the whole force is lacking in resources. The bravery of our soldiers is perhaps our greatest resource


I assume you are talking about a M16A2
i think 550metres is the effective point target range



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I dont know what kind of ammunition your firing, but 55gr NATO M193 rounds are good out to about 450m for point targets and 800m for area targets out of an M16. If the Steyr you are using has a 20 inch barrel as well, I imagine you would see similar results. I dont know if you are scoped or not, but I dont think youll be shooting much past 800m.

Good luck on the SF route, thats something I am seriously considering post-college here in the states.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I'm not sure what styr your talking about, but if its the styr aug then yea it uses the 5.56mm (2.23 caliber).

When you say 9mm, your talking about a pistol cartridge. a 5.56 is a rifle cartridge if you put the 2 up next to each other the rifle cartridge is about 3 times longer.

Now a styr aug has a shorter barrel the na M-16, its a short bullpup design, i may be wrong but if i remember right it has a 16 inch barrel comapred too the 20 of a M-16, i'll look it up later and correct this if i'm wrong.

In most combat your under 300m anyways, but most of these new age assault rifles are about 300m maximum range.

The australian army reserve should find that the rifles are suitable, (although i could have chosen a few that are better in my view).

Oh one last thing i forgot, a rilfe of that length has its upsides, it can replace the role of a sub machine gun in most situations, your weapon is about the same size and you have considerably more firepower, accuracy and range. Along with the same amout of rounds your clip holds compared too most 9mm submachine guns (MP-5 etc)

Hope that helped a bit



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I'm not sure what styr your talking about, but if its the styr aug then yea it uses the 5.56mm (2.23 caliber).

When you say 9mm, your talking about a pistol cartridge. a 5.56 is a rifle cartridge if you put the 2 up next to each other the rifle cartridge is about 3 times longer.

Now a styr aug has a shorter barrel the na M-16, its a short bullpup design, i may be wrong but if i remember right it has a 16 inch barrel comapred too the 20 of a M-16, i'll look it up later and correct this if i'm wrong.

In most combat your under 300m anyways, but most of these new age assault rifles are about 300m maximum range.

The australian army reserve should find that the rifles are suitable, (although i could have chosen a few that are better in my view).

Oh one last thing i forgot, a rilfe of that length has its upsides, it can replace the role of a sub machine gun in most situations, your weapon is about the same size and you have considerably more firepower, accuracy and range. Along with the same amout of rounds your clip holds compared too most 9mm submachine guns (MP-5 etc)

Hope that helped a bit



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   


There is the standard 20" barrel, a shorter carbine 16" barrel, 24" heavy barrel, 13.5" paratrooper barrel in addition to the 9mm subgun barrel. Barrels are chrome lined to resist corrosion (as are the gas piston and other parts) and have been subjected to torture tests such as firing with a projectile in the barrel, and the barrel being filled with water and then fired. Also integral to the barrel is the front grip assembly allowing for a very stable hold. It can be flipped up on most of the barrels to allow for shooting in more traditional style.
From www.steyr-aug.com...

I guess it all depends on what barrel you are using. The shorter the barrel, the less time the round has to stablilize and therefore is less accurate at long ranges.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I was told by a friend who joined the army that they had problems with the F88 on full auto fire because the plastic parts started melting!! not that full auto is used much though.

As for the 5.56mm NATO round its generally considered crap in stopping power, however since most infanty are crap shots anyway, the benefit of the 5.56mm is that they can carry a lot more rounds than the old 7.62mm. That way they can afford to waste more shots so the enemy has to 'keep his head down' while they are advancing. You'll notice most sniper rifles still use the old 7.62mm or specialised sniper rounds for 'one shot, one kill'. Anyway there is a ridiculous amount of info/argument about the 5.56mm round on the internet and everyone has their own opinion. So I dont see much need to discuss it anymore.

As for the SAS/Spec Forces, a year or two ago there was a public recruiting campaign to recruit people directly into the SAS from the public, I dont think they are doing that anymore though.

Otherwise from what I know, anyone in any position in the armed forces can apply to the SAS selection procedure, there isn't much info on the Australian SAS selection process on the web that I have found, but plenty for the British SAS which will give you at least a vague idea of whats required. I even know of an F/A-18 Pilot who tried out and passed and subsequently joined the SAS, fighter pilot and in the SAS my two dream jobs
if it wasn't for my lousy eyesight I'd be doing one of those two jobs now.
not that I'm bitter or anything....

Oh and theres always the Police Special group (SWAT for the yanks) who do quite similar stuff in some ways if you want another avenue/option for that sort of thing.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I've never fired the SLR, but my old man did in his days. He said it kicked like a mule. When I described the feel of the Austeyr to him he laughed and said they could have used it thirty years ago.

As for 300m, that's about all you can expect from most people, trained or not. Even with that little 1.5x scope on the top most people won't hit their target if it's that far away. It takes a lot of practice as well as training and let's face it, Sergeants have been quoted as saying the SLR scared recruits, just because a gun can kill at 1200m doesn't mean the soldier using it can. Sniping is one hell of a skill, and unless you count rabbits at 70m with a .22 I'm not much good at it.

5.56mm Nato ammunition has a far higher muzzle-velocity than 7.62, it can cause more damage, depending on the rifle and the type of ammunition load.

Reasons in favour of Austeyr, it weighs less than half, it's almost half as long, you can carry twice as much ammo, most soldiers can't use the range an SLR gives and most combat is at less than 300m. Plus, and this is the fun bit, you can "bounce" on the trigger of an Austeyr without depressing it far enough to go full auto and still fire almost as quickly as full auto, you retain accuracy and a high rate of fire. You need to be built like Arnie to do that with an SLR.

Reasons in favour of an SLR (or any 7.62/.30cal), one shot knock-down, range and accuracy.

Commandos and SAS are two different things.

4RAR (Cdo) is a line batallion of the Royal Australian Regiment, they're infantry that specialise in amphibious-related operations, just as 3RAR (Para) are a line batallion specialising in the airborne role. They wear green berets and maroon berets.

But...

22 ASAS are the special forces who get to do all the fun jobs and die in places like Iraq.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Lordgoofus I don't mean to be rude but one thing Special Forces require is initiative . Your in the Res but you don't seem to be informed on the equipment you use. This may not be your fault the Army instructers may not of told you. The 5.56 you use will put someone down if you hit the in the body or head out to three hundred meters. They will feel it. It may pay to get as much range time as possible though.
Off the top of my head the Special Forces training will go for around eighteen months. The first group of hopefulls are just about finished, they started with 200 and are now down to 14. It's very tough and demanding.
If you are serious talk to your chain of command. Good luck with your future and stay safe.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Yeah the 5.56 is junk for stopping power its pretty much a overpowered .22. The US Army is thinking of going with the 6.8mm for its new service rifle.

I have heard some good things about the steyr I like how fire selection works in that gun. Having it work through the trigger rather then having a selector switch.

But Im a Kalashnikov man myself man thats a great design and the 7.62X39 is a great round. It should have been modernized instead of going with the 5.45x39 for the AK-74.

ps. LordGoofus joining the reserves is a nobel way to serve your country.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Thanks for all the info/comments
Die Trying, like I said, I only recently joined the reserves & at the moment know next to nothing about weaponry. Naturally I'll be asking my instructors (probably annoying) questions to get more info, but I figure, why not get as much info as I can from as many different sources as I can to help me get a better picture


I suppose when it comes down to it, a bullet to the heart, throat or head is going to stop someone (granted this is probably quite hard to do at long range) pretty damn well hehe.

Anyway, I'm new to all this, just exercising my curious mind
As for there being very little info on SAS selection (I was actually talking about the commandos which is a different thing but anyway), I'd probably say at a rough guess it's sort of on a need to know basis...who wants all their enemies knowing how their best of the best forces train, what weapons they use, what weakenesses their equipment has etc



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Just aim at the torso. the shock of getting shot anywhere will take alot of people down, and the torsos he biggest target (plus if you're not an expert shot you'll quite possibly get the legs/arms/head)



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
lol guys, The SAS are commando's, they were the first special forces unit, the first and still one of the top ones. Well actualy the devils brigade maybe was but its not a actual branch that countiued on, it was just a 1 time unit.

They even made a movie about them, its a good one too. Bout a mix of american and canadian soldiers, the americans were all misfits thrown into this unit cause of how dangerous the mission was. And the canadians were top notch soldiers from the canadian army.

Its on the history channel here in canada one in a while. Good movie based on a true story.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by minimi
Just aim at the torso. the shock of getting shot anywhere will take alot of people down, and the torsos he biggest target (plus if you're not an expert shot you'll quite possibly get the legs/arms/head)


You are trained to aim at the torso, which is the biggest part of the body, therefore you have best chance of hitting it.

It isnt the shock of being hit that brings you down, it is the blood pressure suddenly changing and the human body has an instant and natural reaction to lie down to try and regain the blood pressure, this will only happen if you hit somebody in a serrious place inflicting a major wound that is life threatening.

Head shots however are different; before some petantic person trys to point this out to me.

The 5.56mm is not the most powerful or effective cartrage to use, the 5.56mm's effective range will go upto 500m if your lucky!! Your not likely to hit something though!! The 7.62mm is alot more powerful with a far better effective range and it is a more accurate round.
Snipers rarely use 7.62mm rounds for whoever said it, most of them use .338 magnum rounds or .50 rounds, these are alot more accurate and can travel for over a mile if used in an accurate rifle.
9mm rounds are effective, just not as effective as other rounds (eg - .45ACP) and can take 2 bullets to bring somebody down quite often, sometimes 3 (ok ok 1 if its a head shot) because of this fact, the special forces (namely the SAS) developed a double-tap with their 9mm weapons.

I hope this has helped.

Please U2U me, or ask me on this thread if you have any other questions.

The Squid



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I Did Cadets about 12 months ago for about 6 months before finding out that its a facist hypocracy, but thats another story, in that time we did small and large arms training, pistol and styre

my point being in such a short ammount of time training, i was able to put 20 bullets on single shot lying down through 5cm radius from 100m. i've had no previous experience and just learnt that its best to shoot when theres no air in your lungs(breath out), so with no previous training they were a bit suspect lol

sorry if it doesnt help much, just my 2 cents



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
When I first went shooting I managed a 1 inch group at 100m, and im not THAT good a shot! What Weapon were you using?



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disposible Hero
lol guys, The SAS are commando's, they were the first special forces unit, the first and still one of the top ones.


The SAS are NOT Commandoes.

Commandoes are the Royal Marines.

The original Commandoes were Boer irregulars, mounted farmers fighting guerilla style against empire forces. That's the reason the South African special forces through the 80s were called the Reconnaissance Commandos.

In ww2 the British raised two types of Commandos, one from the Army, the other from the Royal Marines. SAS were also raised from the Army. They were different units, they have different patches and histories.

The Royal Marines are now organised not in batallions, but Commandos.
42 Cdo, 45 Cdo etc.

SAS soldiers are Troopers.

In the Australian Army the Commandos are, as already stated, 4RAR. They are a regular, although specifically trained, infantry batallion.

The SAS are NOT Commandos.

Commandos wear green berets and will do so on the street. SAS wear sand-brown berets and will not do so on the street.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Squid
When I first went shooting I managed a 1 inch group at 100m, and im not THAT good a shot! What Weapon were you using?


What weapon were YOU using?



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I was using a Semi Automatic Ruger (rifle) with a Red Dot Sight (not a zoomed one) what gun were YOU using??

The Royal Marines are not commandos, they are MARINES... the Royal Marine COMMANDO's are suprisingly COMMANDO's


The S.A.S are a special force and are used for practically anything, from air drops to counter terroirist fighting.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join