[WWII] The Sieg rifle - Page 2

Þorkell · 01-31-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Z09SS

L85A1, L86A1 and F88.

That's three; although two are really variations on the same gun and the F88 is apparently as reliable as a normal AUG now.

The Bushmaster's springs didn't like even moderate round counts. Only took about 500 rounds to wear a set. I got sick of replacing mine.

That's one, maybe two. I specified "apart from the L85".

Z09SS · 02-02-2012, 05:09 AM

I hear conflicting reports about the FAMAS being unreliable.

Mini-14 in a bullpup stock is definitely unreliable...

There's no reason a bullpup has to work poorly just because of its configuration.

Son of Dave · 02-04-2012, 04:48 PM

This is abit off-topic, sorry.

I was under the impression that the L85's reliability problems were basicly a combination between teething problems with the design and the relatively high tolerances (for a mass produced basic armament); i.e. that the malf rating is something that should be encountered primarily with early-issue versions and poorly maintained instances; not with the mature basic-issue rifle.

I remember reading that the m-16 had a bad reputation amongst soldiers when it was first issued, in comparison with older firearms that they were more familiar with.

Is my understanding incorrect?

Dewey · 02-04-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Dave

This is abit off-topic, sorry.
I remember reading that the m-16 had a bad reputation amongst soldiers when it was first issued, in comparison with older firearms that they were more familiar with.

Is my understanding incorrect?

The issues with the early M-16 were due to the use of particularly dirty ammo, as well as the fact that the troops were literally told that they didn't need to clean it, though I'm sure that unfamiliarity played a part. these days the M-16 and it's variants are as reliable as any other military arm, despite it's lingering bad reputation.

Z09SS · 02-04-2012, 08:44 PM

My pet theory is the chamber reamer was out of spec in the early guns giving too tight a chamber. When chrome was introduced a new reamer was required, this one was in spec and cured the problem in two ways.

A dirty underbelly story during this time frame is the UAW and Colt's "relationship". That story gets kinda brushed under because of who was president at the time and what party he represented. I'm still digging, but the Air Force M16 doesn't seem to have had the issues the Army/Marine XM16E1/M16A1 had. Different milspec for the guns, different technical data packages, different inspection processes... If the A1 and A-nothings weren't drawing barrels from the same lots; I am on to something. Don't have a definitive answer about that yet.

To me the powder thing might not be the whole story, even though it's the accepted one. We're still using the "bad" powder to this very day.

The L85's issues stem from the all too common problem of a machine not translating from prototype to production. Production processes are entirely different from hand-crafting. Differences in process, changing materials, small changes to critical dimensions that weren't known to be critical to suit tooling; it all adds up. The wall thickness of the receiver stamping is the main culprit, IIRC.

The improved L85A2 was H&K making a game attempt at fixing the issues. It's better than the L85A1, but not completely fixed. H&K recommended more changes than the MoD accepted though.

lachimba · 02-04-2012, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by copeab

In an alternate history campaign, where the rifle was developed earlier or the war lasted longer, it might have some use as a weapon for paratroopers or mechanized infantry (especially if the APCs were fully enclosed). It might also be attractive to special operations units.
[/URL]

Or a gun for the Company in a Black Ops game set circa 1945.

Wait and hope for an infinite firearms book or article to cover all sorts of things like this.

acrosome · 02-25-2012, 05:00 PM

I'm not sure I'd buy Malf 16 for any of those bullpups. That's a failure every 50 rounds or so, isn't it? They aren't that bad.

lachimba · 02-25-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acrosome

That's a failure every 50 rounds or so, isn't it? .

50 rolls in GURPS is not necessarily the same thing as 50 shots

Ulzgoroth · 02-25-2012, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acrosome

I'm not sure I'd buy Malf 16 for any of those bullpups. That's a failure every 50 rounds or so, isn't it? They aren't that bad.

50 attacks, right? There's a somewhat perverse relation between rate of fire and rounds per malfunction in GURPS.

copeab · 02-25-2012, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

50 attacks, right? There's a somewhat perverse relation between rate of fire and rounds per malfunction in GURPS.

In semi-automatic fire, there is negligible difference between # shots and # attacks.

In automatic fire ... yeah, there is a difference.

02-02-2012, 05:09 AM	#12
Z09SS Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Holiday, FL	Re: [WWII] The Sieg rifle I hear conflicting reports about the FAMAS being unreliable. Mini-14 in a bullpup stock is definitely unreliable... There's no reason a bullpup has to work poorly just because of its configuration. __________________ A hobbyist is an expert in their hobby. Unaccredited to be sure, but an expert nonetheless!

02-04-2012, 04:48 PM	#13
Son of Dave Join Date: Jun 2008	Re: [WWII] The Sieg rifle This is abit off-topic, sorry. I was under the impression that the L85's reliability problems were basicly a combination between teething problems with the design and the relatively high tolerances (for a mass produced basic armament); i.e. that the malf rating is something that should be encountered primarily with early-issue versions and poorly maintained instances; not with the mature basic-issue rifle. I remember reading that the m-16 had a bad reputation amongst soldiers when it was first issued, in comparison with older firearms that they were more familiar with. Is my understanding incorrect?

02-04-2012, 08:44 PM	#15
Z09SS Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Holiday, FL	Re: [WWII] The Sieg rifle My pet theory is the chamber reamer was out of spec in the early guns giving too tight a chamber. When chrome was introduced a new reamer was required, this one was in spec and cured the problem in two ways. A dirty underbelly story during this time frame is the UAW and Colt's "relationship". That story gets kinda brushed under because of who was president at the time and what party he represented. I'm still digging, but the Air Force M16 doesn't seem to have had the issues the Army/Marine XM16E1/M16A1 had. Different milspec for the guns, different technical data packages, different inspection processes... If the A1 and A-nothings weren't drawing barrels from the same lots; I am on to something. Don't have a definitive answer about that yet. To me the powder thing might not be the whole story, even though it's the accepted one. We're still using the "bad" powder to this very day. The L85's issues stem from the all too common problem of a machine not translating from prototype to production. Production processes are entirely different from hand-crafting. Differences in process, changing materials, small changes to critical dimensions that weren't known to be critical to suit tooling; it all adds up. The wall thickness of the receiver stamping is the main culprit, IIRC. The improved L85A2 was H&K making a game attempt at fixing the issues. It's better than the L85A1, but not completely fixed. H&K recommended more changes than the MoD accepted though. __________________ A hobbyist is an expert in their hobby. Unaccredited to be sure, but an expert nonetheless! Last edited by Z09SS; 02-04-2012 at 09:00 PM. Reason: Forgot something.

02-25-2012, 05:00 PM	#17
acrosome Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: The Land of Enchantment	Re: [WWII] The Sieg rifle I'm not sure I'd buy Malf 16 for any of those bullpups. That's a failure every 50 rounds or so, isn't it? They aren't that bad.