If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Date: 7/10/2004 5:23 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: (B2431) wrote in message ... From: (robert arndt) Date: 7/8/2004 4:13 AM Central Daylight Time Message-id: Tank Fixer wrote in message ink.net... In article , on 5 Jul 2004 02:16:43 -0700, robert arndt attempted to say ..... http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military...bines/xm8.html Check out the head-to-head comparison. HK rules! from the manufacuers web site ??? hahahahahahaahhaa No need actually since most HK small arms EXCEED all US Federal and Military standards, Jackass. Rob You STILL haven't provided an independant cite. Do you have one? Why don't you just call the US Army's ARDEC, NJ facility and ask them... or perhaps the Secret Service's Armory, or any Police/HRUs in the nation that equip with HK, Walther, Mauser, and Erma. Rob YOU made a claim about the XM-8 it's up to you to prove your point using data other than that provided by the manufaturer. Instead you mention Mauser, Walther and Erma. You still haven't proven your point despite several of us asking you to provide independant and verifiable cites. Don't was us to to your research for you. You made the claim so YOU have to prove it. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
One question that I have is why did they go with red dot sight?
"The attachment points for the standard multi-function integrated red-dot sight allow multiple mounting positions and insure 100% zero retention even after the sight is removed and remounted. The battery powered XM8 sight includes the latest technology in a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle with capability exceeding that of the current M68-CCO, AN/PEQ-2 and AN/PAQ-4. This sight will be factory zeroed on the weapon when it is delivered." This seems like a liability to me. I guess that the designers at HK don't realize the amount of abuse a rifle goes through during its service life. Things like battery powered, IR laser aimer, laser illuminator, factory zeroed, are enough to give me the willies. There is a lot to go wrong with one of the most important parts of the weapon. Batteries die and their connections get corroded, lasers if visible work both ways if invisible require another sensitive piece of gear to use, lenses shatter or crack and get covered with dust, dirt, film from smoke, water drops, and fog over. All the while you are looking through a tube that tends to take away your peripheral vision. Fortunately, I have never been in a fire fight, but it seems to me that when there is one guy out there shooting at me there are probably others out there as well. In my opinion this is a perfect example of fixing something that isn't broken. Good old iron sights with cammed adjustments are the way to go. The sights are the brain of the weapon. In an extremely feeble attempt to get this thread on topic, it has been said in this NG many times a good pilot in an inferior A/C will beat an inferior pilot in an excellent A/C. I would feel more confident shooting a surplus Mosin Nagant with a well mounted Leupold 10x Mk-4 than I would shooting a M-40A1 with a $20 Wal-Mart special slapped on top. This is a perfect example of engineers going nuts in a lab and being out of touch with what is really needed in the field. Evan Williams |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
In message et, Evan
Williams writes All the while you are looking through a tube that tends to take away your peripheral vision. I'd recommend trying a red-dot sight. My own experience of them is limited to pistol ranges (static cardboard targets) and airsoft gaming (mobile targets shooting back, but only with 6mm Tokyo Marui) but I've found that a good RDS is much better for snap shots and moving targets than iron sights. Fortunately, I have never been in a fire fight, but it seems to me that when there is one guy out there shooting at me there are probably others out there as well. So you want to be alert to the rest of the world, rather than focussing on your front sight. I'm not absolutely convinced of the *execution* of the dual sight on the H&K G36 (red-dot sight and 3.5x scope, both built into the carry handle) but the concept's excellent: red-dot for closer quarters and the scope for longer-range work. (The H&K uses a daylight-fed red dot, too) In my opinion this is a perfect example of fixing something that isn't broken. Good old iron sights with cammed adjustments are the way to go. How well do they work with NVDs? It's easier to have a switch on the side of a red-dot scope - or an IR-only laser that only NVGs can see - than to put Betalights on the iron sights. The sights are the brain of the weapon. In an extremely feeble attempt to get this thread on topic, it has been said in this NG many times a good pilot in an inferior A/C will beat an inferior pilot in an excellent A/C. I would feel more confident shooting a surplus Mosin Nagant with a well mounted Leupold 10x Mk-4 than I would shooting a M-40A1 with a $20 Wal-Mart special slapped on top. I'll take a L85A2 with a SUSAT I zeroed over either. I'll take a worn-out L1A1 with iron sights, and the key ingredient of 'lots and lots of ammunition with range time to use it and someone who knows shooting to coach me', over just about anything. This is a perfect example of engineers going nuts in a lab and being out of touch with what is really needed in the field. It seems to me to be more pulled from the field, than pushed from the lab. (If it was an academic push, the troops in the field would be firing 'salvo squeezebore bullets' or flechettes or some of the other interesting concepts that fell by the wayside... the way to improve your troops' marksmanship is less to buy them a new rifle, or even give them a new sight, than to give them lots of practice) -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message et, Evan Williams writes All the while you are looking through a tube that tends to take away your peripheral vision. I'd recommend trying a red-dot sight. My own experience of them is limited to pistol ranges (static cardboard targets) and airsoft gaming (mobile targets shooting back, but only with 6mm Tokyo Marui) but I've found that a good RDS is much better for snap shots and moving targets than iron sights. I have a couple of red dot sights that I use for hunting. One on my T/C Encore 45/70 barrel (the ultimate brush gun) and on on my T/C Encore muzzleloading barrel I use when the weather is bad (if the weather is nice I use my Pennsylvania flint lock). They hold very decent groups out to a hundred yards. Fortunately, I have never been in a fire fight, but it seems to me that when there is one guy out there shooting at me there are probably others out there as well. So you want to be alert to the rest of the world, rather than focussing on your front sight. No, but when I am focusing on the front sight post I can still see movement going on to either side. I'm not absolutely convinced of the *execution* of the dual sight on the H&K G36 (red-dot sight and 3.5x scope, both built into the carry handle) but the concept's excellent: red-dot for closer quarters and the scope for longer-range work. (The H&K uses a daylight-fed red dot, too) In my opinion this is a perfect example of fixing something that isn't broken. Good old iron sights with cammed adjustments are the way to go. How well do they work with NVDs? It's easier to have a switch on the side of a red-dot scope - or an IR-only laser that only NVGs can see - than to put Betalights on the iron sights. It is true that iron sights don't work well with NVG's. That is why they have IR aiming devices that attach to the to the barrrel in front of the forstock on the M-16. The last armory inventory I had to do, I had to verify the S/Ns on over 300 of them. They are light weight, small, simple, easily removed when not needed, and they are not an integral part of the weapon so the weapons performance is not effected by whether or not they work. The sights are the brain of the weapon. In an extremely feeble attempt to get this thread on topic, it has been said in this NG many times a good pilot in an inferior A/C will beat an inferior pilot in an excellent A/C. I would feel more confident shooting a surplus Mosin Nagant with a well mounted Leupold 10x Mk-4 than I would shooting a M-40A1 with a $20 Wal-Mart special slapped on top. I'll take a L85A2 with a SUSAT I zeroed over either. I'll take a worn-out L1A1 with iron sights, and the key ingredient of 'lots and lots of ammunition with range time to use it and someone who knows shooting to coach me', over just about anything. My point I was trying to make was importance of the sighting mechanism. I guess I erred in using scopes to illustrate my belief in iron sights. It's obvious that there are uses for scopes such as snipers and designated marksmen et al. I just think that for that standard infantryman simple and reliable iron sights are the way to go. The fact is that nowadays, the military is not getting lots and lots of ammunition for practice. At least in my experience. Keep in mind I was on the aviation side of the house, but it is not uncommon to go years without firing a single round. During the Reagan and Bush senior, years we fired all the time. Then for about eight years of a different administration, we just weren't getting the training assets that we needed. A couple of years ago we had 37 range quotas for a squadron of 194. When young Marines need to get qualed in order to get promoted it becomes a "leadership challenge". Basically, it boiled down to the only people who got to go to the range were the ones that were close to promotion. I had the opportunity to shoot a buddies FN FAL or copy, I can't remember the exact manufacturer. I enjoyed it very much. It is a solid, ergonomically comfortable, reliable rifle. It is robust enough to instill a sense of confidence in it. Hey, can over 90 countries using "Freedoms Right Arm" be wrong? Especially when the Warsaw Pact was dumping AK's on the rest of the world. I have seen several different styles of sight on these weapons. The one that I fired had a flipper type arrangement that gave me four different sight options rotating in a horizontal axis. I did fine out to the fifty yard line, but once I got to the hundred..., well let's just say he would have been dead but it wasn't pretty. In my defense, I only fired a total of fifty rounds. All in all, I was pleased with it. This is a perfect example of engineers going nuts in a lab and being out of touch with what is really needed in the field. snip (If it was an academic push, the troops in the field would be firing 'salvo squeezebore bullets' or flechettes or some of the other interesting concepts that fell by the wayside... the way to improve your troops' marksmanship is less to buy them a new rifle, or even give them a new sight, than to give them lots of practice) In that, we are in total agreement. Evan Williams -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
In article et, "Evan
Williams" wrote: One question that I have is why did they go with red dot sight? "The attachment points for the standard multi-function integrated red-dot sight allow multiple mounting positions and insure 100% zero retention even after the sight is removed and remounted. The battery powered XM8 sight includes the latest technology in a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle with capability exceeding that of the current M68-CCO, AN/PEQ-2 and AN/PAQ-4. This sight will be factory zeroed on the weapon when it is delivered." This seems like a liability to me. I guess that the designers at HK don't realize the amount of abuse a rifle goes through during its service life. Things like battery powered, IR laser aimer, laser illuminator, factory zeroed, are enough to give me the willies. There is a lot to go wrong with one of the most important parts of the weapon. Batteries die and their connections get corroded, lasers if visible work both ways if invisible require another sensitive piece of gear to use, lenses shatter or crack and get covered with dust, dirt, film from smoke, water drops, and fog over. All the while you are looking through a tube that tends to take away your peripheral vision. Fortunately, I have never been in a fire fight, but it seems to me that when there is one guy out there shooting at me there are probably others out there as well. In my opinion this is a perfect example of fixing something that isn't broken. Good old iron sights with cammed adjustments are the way to go. The sights are the brain of the weapon. In an extremely feeble attempt to get this thread on topic, it has been said in this NG many times a good pilot in an inferior A/C will beat an inferior pilot in an excellent A/C. I would feel more confident shooting a surplus Mosin Nagant with a well mounted Leupold 10x Mk-4 than I would shooting a M-40A1 with a $20 Wal-Mart special slapped on top. This is a perfect example of engineers going nuts in a lab and being out of touch with what is really needed in the field. Please give the engineers the benefit of the doubt. They did not develop this sight in isolation, they did it with the full cooperation and knowledge of the US Army. USA has been using red dot sights for over a decade in very trying conditions, and I think they know what they want and what the reliability is under the proposed service conditions. If it wasn't for forward thinking government and private engineers, the Army would still be using Trapdoor Springfields and .45-70 ammunition. Arguably, the push for better weapons has never come from the tip of the spear, it's always come from the labs and their desire to support those men. Fire away... -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
snip
Please give the engineers the benefit of the doubt. They did not develop this sight in isolation, they did it with the full cooperation and knowledge of the US Army. USA has been using red dot sights for over a decade in very trying conditions, and I think they know what they want and what the reliability is under the proposed service conditions. If it wasn't for forward thinking government and private engineers, the Army would still be using Trapdoor Springfields and .45-70 ammunition. Arguably, the push for better weapons has never come from the tip of the spear, it's always come from the labs and their desire to support those men. Fire away... -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur The problem with being "Tip of the Spear" is that every time you turn around, all you see is the shaft! I have the utmost respect for the abilities of engineers. I just wish that the maintainers had more to say about the design as it is being designed. I started out on F-4S's which when designed, MacAir's policy was "If you could put your hand in a compartment, something is missing". As a result on a good day it would take about four hours to change out a fuse on our electrical fusing power supply. On the other hand, I could sit in the cockpit and depending on what worked with the switches in different positions I could tell you exactly what was broken. Basically you could have forked hay all of your life but if you had common sense you could fix the aircraft. For the sidewinder missile system, we had an AN/AWM-20B test set. It had two knobs one on top of the other and a meter. Each step of the test you would move a knob to a different position and read the meter. If a step failed you instantly knew what was wrong. It was dead nuts simple. Then we transitioned to the F/A-18. OH MY GOD! It's all about computers talking to computers. And if some totally unrelated to your system isn't working right it can still cause your system to fail making it very difficult to figure out what the problem is. The engineers learned from the F-4 and made "single layer", but we became box changers. The Tech Pubs say "If it doesn't work, change this box. If that doesn't fix it change this box", and so on and so forth. The result is that maintainers are pulling out perfectly good computers and sending them to MALS (AIMD, Back Shop) for testing and troubleshooting. We had an Air Force Maj. Come by our hanger one day to see how we did maintenance. He said that he was from an F-16 community and they averaged about 60%-65% good computers being sent to their back shop because that was the way their maintenance was done. I don't know our percentages, but it was probably about the same as theirs. There is a memory inspect system in the Hornet that is supposed to tell you what is wrong. I got it to work twice in almost ten years. Needless to say we only used it as a last resort. You often hear about former military pilots being part of R+D programs but I personally have never heard of a maintainer being there to say "Are you nuts!" I went though boot camp with an M-16A1 (on the magazine well were it normally has the Colt seal, mine said "manufactured by the hydrodynamic div of the GM Corp"). It worked but I didn't care for it. While I don't have a lot of faith in what the 5.56 mm will do when it hits the target, I do have faith in the M16A2 to work and hit what I am aiming at. I have never had a jam with either my service weapon or my personal AR-15. I have been led to believe that the modifications making the A1 into the A2 came from one or two USMC GySgt's (shameless plug for my service). I cannot count how many times I have heard from either engineers or tech reps "It worked fine in the lab". I just wish that it would work fine in the freezing cold, hot and humid, dusty, and ship borne environments as well. I am afraid that until it is standard policy that the high school graduates (with experience in the field) who will maintain and operate these systems have a role in the design phase we are going to end up the standard "The babies ugly, see you later". Your Shot Evan Williams VF-101, VMFA-232, VMFA-122, VMFA-251, HMH-461 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Evan Williams wrote:
The problem with being "Tip of the Spear" is that every time you turn around, all you see is the shaft! I have the utmost respect for the abilities of engineers. I just wish that the maintainers had more to say about the design as it is being designed. Actually, the A-10 is an example of just such a plane. (Though nowhere near as packed with black boxes as an F-4.) A number of experienced NCO maintainers had near-veto power over some of the component-positioning decisions on the A-10. I started out on F-4S's which when designed, MacAir's policy was "If you could put your hand in a compartment, something is missing". As a result on a good day it would take about four hours to change out a fuse on our electrical fusing power supply. On the other hand, I could sit in the cockpit and depending on what worked with the switches in different positions I could tell you exactly what was broken. Basically you could have forked hay all of your life but if you had common sense you could fix the aircraft. For the sidewinder missile system, we had an AN/AWM-20B test set. Memory check: Nope. The -20 checkers were for AIM-7 stations; Lots of solenoid "eyeballs" for checking the different functions. It had two knobs one on top of the other and a meter. Each step of the test you would move a knob to a different position and read the meter. If a step failed you instantly knew what was wrong. It was dead nuts simple. Sounds like a GWM-4 tester. Used on the AIM-9 launchers - as long as you remembered to remove ALL of the missiles from the other wing before starting the checks! Then we transitioned to the F/A-18. OH MY GOD! It's all about computers talking to computers. That was the same set of problems as the F-16 hunk-o'-junk. ("Current software is capable of accurately diagnosing 80% of detectable faults...". Yeah, right. Who gets to fix the remaining 20%? What about the guy stuck with a persistent "non-detectable" fault?) That's where the system of "smart machine, dumb technician" failed miserably. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F-102 pilot kicks sailors ass | D. Strang | Military Aviation | 22 | March 26th 04 05:03 AM |