The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Firn]

My army is now buying the CZ 805 rifles with interchangable barrel/caliber (.223 and 7,62x39).)

CZ makes certainly some fine firearms.

Just curious. How is that CZ 805 stock? It seems to be quite interesting, being foldable, having an adjustable lenght of pull and an addable cheek piece.

Seems that stocks like that are becoming more and more the norm, which is IMHO a good thing if the hold up.

[BushrangerCZ]

CZ makes certainly some fine firearms.

Just curious. How is that CZ 805 stock? It seems to be quite interesting, being foldable, having an adjustable lenght of pull and an addable cheek piece.

Seems that stocks like that are becoming more and more the norm, which is IMHO a good thing if the hold up.

Stock was one of the things that was pointed out during the recent field tests, for me it seemed too "competition" and not too "army". Imagine throwing buttstock full of holes and screws into the mud, you would clean it forever. I think the current one will be fine, it´s similar to SCAR stock, and I guess a bit lighter.

[Firn]

Stock was one of the things that was pointed out during the recent field tests, for me it seemed too "competition" and not too "army". Imagine throwing buttstock full of holes and screws into the mud, you would clean it forever. I think the current one will be fine, it´s similar to SCAR stock, and I guess a bit lighter.

Thanks. We will have to see if the "competition" stock will hold up the "army" time.

BTW Beretta is on a pretty similar route with their "carabina futura". I do like folding stocks and I do think adjusting the lenght of pull is a good idea. Even an addable or raisable cheek piece is helpful for normal scopes which are mounted a bit higher. But will the designers come to a soldier-proof solution?

[BushrangerCZ]

First is old stock, below is the new one.

[Firn]

Thanks. Somehow it seems that the external look of the conventional "future" Nato rifles becomes more and more similar. Not saying that this is a bad thing, and in this area the experiences of the Afghan war have certainly played a big role, especially for countries with deployed units.

Standardization is in many a technical area a good thing. Mounting optics and other stuff has certainly never been easier.

---------------------------------------

Personally I do find it interesting to see that during WWI the squads became far more diverse. Training was partly specialized, with bombers, grenadiers, scouts/snipers/observers, automatic riflemen. machinegunners etc with the rifleman usually supporting them. Defensive patrols differed from fighting patrols, scouting parties from trench raiders or assault units. No hard and fast rules about their composition were set in late WWI.

[jcustis]

So I took my two youngest daughters the local used bookstore and what do I find but a very good condition copy of War Department's FM 7-10, Infantry Field Manual, Rifle Company, Rifle Regiment, June 2, 1942.

From some basic google strings, it looks like I made out and picked up something with much greater value than what I paid (but yet the Paladin Press pamphlet on ambushes was highway robbery!).

Anyway, I open the manual to a random page, and what a jinx:

from pg 139.

4) The automatic rifleman supports the rapid advance of other members of the squad from flank positions. Because of the difficulty of maintaining an adequate supply of ammunition, the fire of automatic rifles is conserved to the actual needs of the situation. Thus, when the fires of individual riflemen serve to accomplish the desired effect, they are used in preference to the automatic rifle.

The front cover of the FM is signed by a C. J. Fox, and it seems to have been sold for 40 cents at some point. Sometimes the amateur bibliophile is rewarded with a gem. I am going to put this one away in a cool, dark place, and brush up on the contents via the online version I found here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...-10/index.html

[Ken White]

It was also one more reason many BAR Men converted their weapons from slow and fast rate full auto to semi and full auto, a move that also got rid of almost a pound of weight. Weight reduction was further aided by ditching the bipod and carrying handle...

[JMA]

First is old stock, below is the new one.

The SCAR (as good as it no doubt is) is a designer rifle. As has been written:

"The purpose of the program, titled SCAR (SOF Combat Assault Rifle), was to develop a new rifle “designed for SOF by SOF,” with operator input required in the initiation, generation, testing and selection of the new system."

OK, so the SCAR was designed for special forces by special forces.

But what of the line infantry? Why do the line infantry (these days) end up with crappy peashooters like the M4 and the SA80?

... and what would be the principle differences between a SOF weapon and that of a standard line infantry issue?

[BushrangerCZ]

The SCAR (as good as it no doubt is) is a designer rifle. As has been written:


OK, so the SCAR was designed for special forces by special forces.

But what of the line infantry? Why do the line infantry (these days) end up with crappy peashooters like the M4 and the SA80?

... and what would be the principle differences between a SOF weapon and that of a standard line infantry issue?

Only difference between SF and infantry in the matter of assault rifles I see in caliber and barrel lenght (SF should have the infantry standard issue rifle, plus the same with shorter barrel and/or different caliber, due to the fact that they have some similar, but some different tasks than infantry, like hostage rescue, VIP protection etc., where .308 caliber, which I suppose to be the best for infantry, would not be the best for the task). Also SF rifle needs details like ability to carry a supressor. But SCAR rifles have all these options, that´s the reason I see SCAR rifle as the best choice for whole army, even if it was developed for SOF purpose. I see every day in job that everybody and his dog wants to call himself SF (cooks, staff officers, logistic guys are experts on this), but that´s another story. Reliability, simplicity, accuracy, easy maintenance are the same principles for everybody.
PS: I agree that M4 is not the best rifle, but it´s not bad either. It´s light and accurate, and if you choose right manufacturer, it is also reasonably reliable. SA80 is heavy, and usable only for right shoulder - or at least it used to be, I am not sure about the newest version. On the other hand, I like the safety selector, and cocking handle is definately better designed than in AR15 family.

[Compost]

Only difference between SF and infantry in the matter of assault rifles I see in caliber and barrel lenght (SF should have the infantry standard issue rifle, plus the same with shorter barrel and/or different caliber, due to the fact that they have some similar, but some different tasks than infantry, like hostage rescue, VIP protection etc., where .308 caliber, which I suppose to be the best for infantry, would not be the best for the task). Also SF rifle needs details like ability to carry a supressor. But SCAR rifles have all these options, that´s the reason I see SCAR rifle as the best choice for whole army, even if it was developed for SOF purpose. I see every day in job that everybody and his dog wants to call himself SF (cooks, staff officers, logistic guys are experts on this), but that´s another story. Reliability, simplicity, accuracy, easy maintenance are the same principles for everybody.
PS: I agree that M4 is not the best rifle, but it´s not bad either. It´s light and accurate, and if you choose right manufacturer, it is also reasonably reliable. SA80 is heavy, and usable only for right shoulder - or at least it used to be, I am not sure about the newest version. On the other hand, I like the safety selector, and cocking handle is definately better designed than in AR15 family.

Currently shoulder arms for Australian forces are procured on two distinct paths: one primarily for infantry that flows on to most of the armed forces, and a second for special forces.

Most infantry are issued with the 5.56mm F88 AUG bullpup as a carbine (405mm barrel in 690mm overall) or rifle (505 in 790mm), but some have 5.56mm M16A2 forward-mag rifles (505 in 1000mm). Infantry marksmen and the 2nd member of sniper teams are armed with either a heavily telescoped AUG or a 7.62mm SR25 fwd-mag semi-automatic rifle. The SR25 is to be largely succeeded by a recently ordered batch of 7.62mm HK417 fwd-mag semi-auto rifles.

Australian special forces commonly employ the 5.56mm M4 fwd-mag carbine and the 7.62mm SR25 fwd-mag semi-auto rifle, complemented by the close-range 9mm MP5 SMG and 12 gauge Rem870 shotgun. The M4 was/is reportedly favoured - over the sometimes issued AUG - because of its lower weight, ready availability of a SOPMOD kit, and better reliability after immersion due to larger bore gas cylinder. Low weapon weight and ease of portability are highly valued by special forces where personnel often carry a second long barrel weapon and usually an auxiliary sidearm. Hence direct gas action in the M4 and SR25 (and also the sometimes issued M16A2) is accepted despite the affect on serviceability.

The standard flash suppressor on the M4 carbine (370mm barrel in 840mm overall) cannot handle the problem of flash from 5.56mm ammunition developed for common use in carbines and longer barreled weapons. To suppress muzzle flash - especially at night - the long and bulky M4 noise suppressor can be used although it increases length by about 15cm out toward that of a fwd-mag rifle. That is apparently acceptable, and anyway muzzle flash can for some SPECFOR operations be useful to increase shock and intimidation.

Infantry operations are likely to be of much longer duration with a corresponding need for weapon ruggedness and reliability. Also suppression of muzzle flash that otherwise serves as a bullet magnet is a vital and ever-present concern for infantry.

In place of SMGs and shotguns Australian infantry rely on the AUG bullpup carbine plus 40mm single shot attachments. Addtionally, several types of bolt-action and semi-automatic sniper rifles are on issue including the SR98 (AI AW-F), Blaser Tactical 2 and AI AW-50F mostly in 7.62mm, 8.59mm and 12.7mm resp. Typically, each of those sniper rifles has been procured in small quantities and each of the current types have progressed by way of various pathways into common use.

Shifting to the general case, special forces in Australian and all other armed forces have special needs including rapid delivery of small batches of new types of equipment. They may finish up using common equipment but that should never become an objective.

It is necessary that procurement for special forces is - and continues to be - under SPECFOR control and that it be kept separate from (but known to) procurement for infantry and other. There is an ancillary benefit in that rapid procurement for special forces can enable early assessment and trial use by infantry. That applies to armies everywhere and can be especially useful for large armies that have tortuous procurement procedures.

[JMA]

... and I do think adjusting the lenght of pull is a good idea.

Why?

[Firn]

Why?

Usually the stock is made to fit the median soldier, and large and small guys would profit from a better fitting stock. If you add body armor things can get very difficult for the smaller soldiers. Lenght of pull is greatly influenced by body shape, clothing and body armor, so it is perhaps the most worthy of the hassle to making it adjustable.

I think Bushranger called that stock "competition" because for example in biatholon the stocks are individually shaped and adjustable to fit the shooter in question.

[BushrangerCZ]

Usually the stock is made to fit the median soldier, and large and small guys would profit from a better fitting stock. If you add body armor things can get very difficult for the smaller soldiers. Lenght of pull is greatly influenced by body shape, clothing and body armor, so it is perhaps the most worthy of the hassle to making it adjustable.

I think Bushranger called that stock "competition" because for example in biatholon the stocks are individually shaped and adjustable to fit the shooter in question.

I think that there is no doubt that ability to adjust lenght of stock is a positive progress. I just did not like the design of first version stock on CZ805, I like the newer design, and I like SCAR stock too. M4 stock is not bad either. All these stocks are possible to adjust.

[JMA]

I think that there is no doubt that ability to adjust lenght of stock is a positive progress. I just did not like the design of first version stock on CZ805, I like the newer design, and I like SCAR stock too. M4 stock is not bad either. All these stocks are possible to adjust.

It is (or should be) standard to purchase rifles with a combination of long, standard and short butt-stock lengths. The user information should be easily available through historical record of the applicable army or branch of the military. For standard infantry (and also everyone else) this has been the standard up until recently (when individually adjustable butt-stocks have become the norm).

My question was simple in that not coming from a cold climate where an additional amount of padding and other stuff in the area of the shoulders during winter may be necessary. Does this padding affect the length of pull to the extent that a length of butt-stock adjustment would be necessary? I can't think of any other reason why a person would need to adjust the length of his butt-stock.