Any more inside skinny on the aug88 being dropped...

[gew98]

... by the 'ozzies' ?. I've been hearing for a spell how they are sick and tired of that bullpup abomination and it's been a spell too since I heard through the rumor mill that they were gonna bring the SLR back to life scaled down and in 6,8 PPC caliber. Love to hear more current dope on this.

[Moonie]

6.8 PPC or 6.8 SPC?

[gew98]

I get the two mixed up myself but believe it's actually the SPC chambering.

[Artful]

only thing I found was 2010 report of Aussie's buying 7.62x51/308 cal. HK417 as disignated marksman tool
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/images_products_mr_762_general_mr_762_lg_3-tm-tfb.jpg
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/12/25/australia-adopts-hk417-rifle/

[Ed in North Texas]

6.8 PPC or 6.8 SPC?

Is there a 6.8 Palmisano & Pindel Cartridge (PPC)? I know there is a 6mm PPC, but I haven't come across a 6.8mm PPC. Doesn't mean someone hasn't made their own wildcat by necking the 6mm PPC up to 6.8mm. One attempt prior to the 6.8 Special Purpose Cartridge (SPC) was necking the 6mm PPC up to 6.5mm, but the fat case reduced magazine capacity too much and the .30 Remington cartridge case head didn't need to cut as much metal out of the AR bolt face as the PPC.

[herbert buckland]

All the serving userd of the upgraded rifle I have talked to seem to be very happy with the AUG.When the change was made to the smaller cartridge I could never work out why FNC was not adopted,a proven desighn an very little re-training involved,and strong enough for some enhanced interigation with out comeing apart in your hands

[JeffinNZ]

They won't go for a non standard NATO round. Doesn't make sense. They have had the AUG's as long as us which is 24 years so the time may be due for replacement.

[herbert buckland]

I do not think they will be replaced any time soon as they have just finished isuing the new modle,certian units use the M4 carbine as the AUG had trouble after being emersed in water,I think but am not sure this problem has been adressed in the new modle,also the new NATO cartridge seems to be preforming OK in Afganistan,but as all ways the SAS will yous what it thinks best for the job so I think you will see somediffrent than standard isue wepons being yoused in the near future but the AUG will be the standard issue for most troops for a long time

[Four Fingers of Death]

I used to work with the guy who was the Rifle Engineer at Lithgow Small Arms Factory when they made the Steyers. He was totally in charge of development and production and later on addressing the faults. He found that most of the trouble in the early years was from old soldiers, insisting on using their favourite old solvents, etc. Glocks suffered from a similar problem.

He swears blind that they tested the AR platform along with lots of other options, but the Steyer out performed the lot of them in all tests.

I haven't heard of any real problems in the recent years.

I don't like the bullpup configurations myself, althought I found that the AusSteyers I firied while I was working were good to use. I don't know what they would be like without ear protection.

The only thing that would prompt a change would be a NATO change of calibre or something similar. I think that is unlikely as well. Lots of people complain about the 223, but squillions of soldiers use it effectively.

[MtGun44]

As to the effectiveness of the 5.56 NATO, I have discussed it with several combat officers.
They agreed that "If you shoot them in the middle, they fall down. Shoot them around the
edges, not so much." The biggest failing was getting inside a car and stopping the occupants.
OTOH, one of them had used an M-14, and said that even the 7.62 NATO didn't get inside
a car well, either. He said that if you need to get to folks in a car reliably (5.56 and 7.62 will
work with enough shots, but they are often deflected or stopped) is to as they put it
"unlimber Ma Deuce. Ma Deuce WILL get inside a car." Of course, Ma Deuce refers to
the M2 .50 cal. One told me that to set up a car checkpoint, where you may REALLY need
to stop a car borne IED, you set up a sandbagged M2 and have it hot and manned at all
times.

I have an Aug and it is reasonably accurate and works reasonably well, but I have had a
few jams. My biggest issue is that the doughnut reticle is fine for CQB, but it definitely needs
a tiny dot in the center or crosshairs to permit precision shots at long range. I wish mine
had the rail instead of a non-changeable factory 1x optical sight.

Bill

[herbert buckland]

The new isue Australian AUGs have rails and much better sights now ,also fitted for grenade lanchers,I have found these rifles to be extreamly acurate,but the trigger takes a bit of getting youse to for some one who is not yousing it all the time,like me

[ilcop22]

The 556x45 round is a fine cartridge, and it's the short sightedness of Congress and the late-to-the-game ammunition developments which give it a bad name. The terminal effects of the original M193 ball ammunition were deemed "inhumane", and thus the M855 was introduced. As complaints go, over penetration and a failure to "tumble" result from that cartridge. Additionally, the range is insufficient on current battlefronts. The Army is trying to correct that issue with the M855 EPR cartridge, which has a vastly imroved copper/steel core bullet purported to do significant damge to soft and light armored targets. The USMC is adopting a round long used by SOCOM - The Mk318 Mod 0 round - which consists of an open tip (NOT hollow point) FMJ bullet which has proven devestating in SBRs and CQB battle. The real solution to the deficiencies of the 5.56x45 cartridge lie in the bullets used by our military. The Hague Convention - an archaic, ill-informed decision banning the use of Hollow Point munitions - is long overdue to be discarded. We in law enforcement got wise long ago and started using HP munitions in small arms, and recently (particularly FBI HRT) in our AR platform rifles. Hunters aren't even legally allowed (in pretty much every place) to use FMJ ammo because it's too inhumane... Yet we kill our enemies with it, often taking several rounds to put them down. Studies have indicated that the 6.8 SPC round is superior to the 5.56x45, but that's a distant solution to a problem that needs addressing today. And that's my rant on why 5.56x45 is a good round with a bad image. :drinks:

[NickSS]

illcop 22 id correct ammo is the trick. The military for right or wrong is limited to ammo that meats the intent of international agreements but there are better bullets. As for the 6.8SPC cartridge it is a more powerful round with a bigger bullet but it is a backward step as the military back in the 1950s turned down a cartridge that was proposed by the Brits that was almost identical in performance of the 6.8 SPC. The only real difference was a .284 bullet in lieu of a .270 bullet. Ballistically you would never notice the difference. So if they did not adopt it back then chances are they will not do so today except for special forces use.

[gew98]

ilcop ; I disagree with your reasoning on the demise of the M193 bullet. When the 55 grain bullet was initially made and used in rifles purchased for and sent to RVN in the kennedy administration the bullet had a much more "severe" tip . This caused considerably better tumbling/wounding effect. The early reports of this rifle and cartridge from RVN then when being used by Green berets and RVN rangers recounted some really horrific wounds/bodily damage on the VC.
When the US gov't got to the point of adopting the 'dumbed' down version of the AR15 the bullet design suffered as the big ammunition manufacturers complained die life was short wiht the eugen stoner designed point to the 5,56 bullet. Hence they were allowed to make the bullet more blunt and less pointed which created a less lethal bullet.
The adoption of the SS109 bullet design as the M855 ball had nothing to do with inhumane wounding...it had everything to do with increasing the range and accuracy at those extended ranges along with more penetative ability. The reality was as we have learned is a considerably less lethal bullet moving at lesser velocity. The SOST type bullets being evaluated and likely adopted have improved the 5,56x45's ability to be "barrier blind" as they coin it , and do increase it's ability to inflict more lethality , but in the end lethality at ranges 250 meters plus is still suffering with the 5,56 bullet. I'd agree the 5,56 as a CQB is pretty good for that job. With today's brand of M4/M4A1 with a 14.5" tube.... it's not going to be much threat after 250 meters. As my friend currently in asscrackistan has told me engaging at 400 meters or more is frequent and more or less a waste of ammunition.
I do agree that the .284 bullet the brits proposed back in the 50's would have been the ticket until this day. I do hope the rumors are true the ozzies will go the 6.5 route in an FAL chasis.... I'd want one then for sure !.

[old turtle]

I agree that the .284 round the brits developed (281/30) was the way to go. It had a 139 gr. bullet going at 2530 fps. A higher velocity might be available with today's powders. The present wars are being conducted in open ground, desert conditions unlike the short range, jungle type of war. I feel the US should review all of its individual weapons. Just my two cents worth which is even worth less since 2008.

[ilcop22]

Gew98, the demise of the M193 isn't my reasoning... It's from several gov't documents. The change was a NATO initiative rather than a US one.

[gew98]

ilcop ; I was RA back then when the change was made...nothing I have read then or since ever stated the change to the "superior" SS109 had anything to do with the M193 being so inhumane...quite the opposite at the time was touted. When we had to turn our A1's in for A2's none of us grunts were happy with it. A heavier rifles with a less lethal slower moving bullet.... we sure felt like someone 'upstairs' was moving backwards with that decision.

[madsenshooter]

The change to the SS109 wasn't due only to the increased range, it had a lot to do with the wounding capability of the M193. The SS109 and M855 were patterned after a bullet specifically designed by the great neutral and NATO member, Switzerland. They couldn't stomach the wounding capability of the M193. Of course there was much debate by NATO to bring about the final configuration of the new standard. But the increased range was the after effect. The stability that brought that increased range tied in with the wounding effect, less trauma from tumbling.

[Combat Diver]

The SS109 bullet was design by FN for the Minimi light machine gun as we wanted increased penetration on a standard US M1 helmet at 600m. 7.62mm NATO M80 ball wouldn't do that either, hence the steel penetrator in the bullet and the M856 tracer has a longer burnout for that reason, increase visable range from the M249 SAW. The ammo was then carried over to the M16A1E1 PIP (than standarderized as the M16A2).


CD

[gew98]

I recall when we were issued our M16A2's they were all FN made...the ammo was all LC and the tracers were all cupronickel jacketed red lacquer tipped belgian made. And maybe 1 in 3 of those brand new M249's worked as advertized then. As much as I dislike dthe M60...I would take it over a 249 back then any day of the week as it least it worked most of the time.