Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

Thread: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,281

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Some pics, but obviously not line troops but SAS operators:
    Why would everyone be in camo suits and face paint but the bloke far right is going into Vietnam jungle with a light coloured headdress, unless he has a death wish?

    Hard to tell, but the trees in the background could be eucalypts, which means it's probably in Australia and it's a training exercise.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,281

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Another:
    Bearing in mind that I'm not all that interested in weapons beyond the basics and that the photo ain't all that clear on necessary details, I wouldn't be surprised if the digger second from left with his weapon's muzzle in the dirt (for doing which my corporal, sergeant, CSM, and RSM all would have kicked my arse till it bled) is holding "The Bitch".

    The Bitch was a standard issue 7.62 SLR semi-auto L1A1 or fully auto L2A1 modified in various ways by the SAS in Vietnam. The L2A1 was pretty much identical with the standard semi-auto L1A1 SLR basic infantry weapon but had a heavier barrel, bipod, 30 round mag and full auto. It was more or less equivalent as a section weapon to the US BAR and a sort of (i.e. not as good as) replacement for the Bren gun previously used by Australia.

    The basic mod was to shorten the barrel, which appears to be the case in the photo as the flash eliminator has gone. From ancient memory, the barrel can be shortened quite a bit further as the foresight is well behind the flash eliminator.

    Assuming the weapon in the photo is a modified SLR whether L1 or L2, it's lost the wooden forestock and had a ?grenade launcher? attached forward of the magazine.

    The magazine looks like it's a 30 round L2 mag rather than the standard 20 round L1 mag, which was also a standard SAS mod, for obvious reasons.

    EDIT LAST SENTENCE: Remove typo reference twice to L2 mag and clarifiy L2 mag substituted for L1 mag.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 06-22-2017 at 09:05 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,281

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Spent half a day yesterday with a former Australian SAS bloke I know and the F1 came up, as in I said it was piece of shit.

    He agreed, strongly (as does anyone I've ever met who actually fired it).

    Then he went on to disappoint me by volunteering that the Owen gun (which I've never fired) was even worse. And he thought the M16 was so far superior to either weapon that it wasn't even a contest with the Owen /F1, and it was a f**king mystery to him why Australia didn't get on to the M16 earlier.

    It's hard to believe that Australian defence procurement officials could have made a poor decision on this weapon when they have such a glowing history of brilliant procurements.

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/rusty...201-1acgx.html

    http://www.news.com.au/news/bn-waste...40795119a36cc2

    For clarification for those overseas, here is a picture of an Australian defence procurement official working flat out in the national interest.




    However, they are not all like that. Here is an Austrlaian defence procurement official responding with great vigor to questions about how his crew managed to f**k up defence procurement on, say, the links above beyond all belief.




    Lest it be thought these magnificent bureaucrats lack real energy, here is a picture of one of them reacting to news that his pay was in future to be linked to performance.

    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Perhaps your new ex-SAS friend was more critical of the ammo than the guns. No matter what shoots it, a 9mm no longer cut it in the jungle against enemy armed with intermediate cartridge automatic weapons like the AK or SKS. Also, the F1's he might have handled might have been 20 years old by even then. The pic's I posted I think show how the M-16/CAR-15's and the L1A1/L2's would have complemented each other well in small elite units as a combo of heavier rounds to go through jungle foliage and smaller, easier to handle rifles with more close range firepower.

    I often wonder why it took the U.S. Army and Marine Corp to finally ****ing figure out that the M-16 series needed to be supplemented by a full caliber 7.62mm weapon they didn't adopted until 2007, such as the M-110 series (basically a highly modified AR-10), to give infantry a longer range weapon with more hitting power than the M-16's, like the Russians had with the Dragunov....

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,310

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    I like the idea of replacing the 16 with the 110, modern body armor, and present day battle conditions do not favor the 5.56 Cartridge, it's day is passing. The Special Forces wanted something beefier than the 5.56, something that would give them performance about equal to the 7.62x39. The answer to that was the .300 AAC Blackout 7.62x35. This used a shorter version of the 5.56 case, necked up to .30 cal. it was very good for the special Forces, as if provided more punch that would work well suppressed, and need only a different upper receiver, and Barrel. All the rest is the same as the regular M-4 currently used. The only problem with this cartridge is that it serves best in close quarters work, and suffers the same shortcoming as the M-1 Carbine. The velocity drops steeply, as does the bullet, after about 250 yds. So this is not too useful in normal Infantry situations. I'm pleased that the 7.62x51 is going to make a comeback, it will answer many needs, including simplifying supply. I also think that a completely new cartridge might be developed, building on the various short magnum cartridges now in use. Using more modern propellants, perhaps even new case, and bullet materials, a shorter, easier to carry, but still having the characteristics of the 7.62x51 would be an advantage. Just some late evening revels off the top of my head.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,281

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Perhaps your new ex-SAS friend was more critical of the ammo than the guns.
    No, it was more reliability and adaptability.

    We agreed that the F1 was useful on the occasions it worked properly at very short ranges in tight jungle, but was too unreliable.

    He had experience with the Owen gun and liked its reliability and usefulness in tight jungle at short range contacts, which typically was what forward scouts would encounter in tight jungle and to what the F1 was supposedly ideally suited.

    The advantage he saw in the M16 was that, in Vietnam anyway, it was rare that anyone spent all their time in tight jungle and the Owen and even a perfectly functioning F1 were useless when moving into more open country, rubber plantations etc with longer ranges, so the M16 was far better as an all round weapon.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,281

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Also, the F1's he might have handled might have been 20 years old by even then.
    No. They were fresh in his hands in the mid-1960s, a few years after we started producing them in the early 1960s.

    The F1s I fired had to be less than 10 years old.

    In the mid to late 1960s as a civilian I fired heavily used WWII (or for all I know WWI) surplus .303 Lee Enfields that were still fairly tight and a bloody sight better than the much more recently manufactured F1s.

    Probably reflects more about the steadily declining standards of government assessment, specifications, procurement and inspection than anything necessarily inherent in the weapons. Refer pictures of koalas above.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,310

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    No. They were fresh in his hands in the mid-1960s, a few years after we started producing them in the early 1960s.

    The F1s I fired had to be less than 10 years old.

    In the mid to late 1960s as a civilian I fired heavily used WWII (or for all I know WWI) surplus .303 Lee Enfields that were still fairly tight and a bloody sight better than the much more recently manufactured F1s.

    Probably reflects more about the steadily declining standards of government assessment, specifications, procurement and inspection than anything necessarily inherent in the weapons. Refer pictures of koalas above.
    Having a 100 yr old No. 1 Mk.III I can vouch for it's ability to do a great job of grouping shots, and quickly too. Although I have not held or fired an F-1, or any of its immediate kin, I do find them to be at best limited in usefulness except perhaps in lining some Koala's pockets for recommending its adoption. For close combat, room to room sorts of work, this might do well if it can be made to run right, and function while suppressed. the FN P-90, and the Kriss Vector are other weapons most suited to that sort of work and may well cost less to procure. But for general infantry use, the F-1 is a losing proposition. Might as well give the Troops M-2 Carbines. Having seen some of our own Governmental officials in action , I must opine that your Koala's appear to be overachievers.. (I hope this post still makes sense after I've had some Coffee)
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 07-07-2017 at 09:16 AM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,281

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    Having seen some of our own Governmental officials in action , I must opine that your Koala's appear to be overachievers.
    Yeah, that agrees with our koalas' exaggerated opinions of themselves.

    Don't be too hard on your government officials. If you saw the crap they've managed to sell to our koalas, you'd be impressed with your blokes' ability to sell ice to eskimos.


    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    (I hope this post still makes sense after I've had some Coffee)
    Makes sense to me, but I've had beer.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,310

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Beer is Grand! (Just not before Breakfast)....(usually)
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 07-08-2017 at 09:19 AM.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    Beer is Grand! (Just not before Breakfast)....(usually)
    Unless it's gameday!!

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    No. They were fresh in his hands in the mid-1960s, a few years after we started producing them in the early 1960s.

    The F1s I fired had to be less than 10 years old.

    In the mid to late 1960s as a civilian I fired heavily used WWII (or for all I know WWI) surplus .303 Lee Enfields that were still fairly tight and a bloody sight better than the much more recently manufactured F1s.

    Probably reflects more about the steadily declining standards of government assessment, specifications, procurement and inspection than anything necessarily inherent in the weapons. Refer pictures of koalas above.
    Well, the same could be said about cheaply mass-produced Stens I guess. I had the chance to buy a .303 really cheap after I got out of the Army. I really wish I had...

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    Having a 100 yr old No. 1 Mk.III I can vouch for it's ability to do a great job of grouping shots, and quickly too. Although I have not held or fired an F-1, or any of its immediate kin, I do find them to be at best limited in usefulness except perhaps in lining some Koala's pockets for recommending its adoption. For close combat, room to room sorts of work, this might do well if it can be made to run right, and function while suppressed. the FN P-90, and the Kriss Vector are other weapons most suited to that sort of work and may well cost less to procure. But for general infantry use, the F-1 is a losing proposition. Might as well give the Troops M-2 Carbines. Having seen some of our own Governmental officials in action , I must opine that your Koala's appear to be overachievers.. (I hope this post still makes sense after I've had some Coffee)
    The rate of fire achieved by well trained and disciplined British troops in the early parts of WWI was the reason the Germans believed that the Brits had far more automatic weapons than they did...

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,281

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Well, the same could be said about cheaply mass-produced Stens I guess.
    IIRC there was a WWII American gun - ?pistol? ?smg? - produced from stamped metal in a former toy factory converted to war production. Or something like that.

    Can't recall if it was a weapon that was produced in large numbers or just a small production that didn't see much service.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,281

    Default Re: Sten gun vs Owens sub machine gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Unless it's gameday!!
    Or in a dissolute period of my youth when working in the bush when a mate and I started Saturdays with a few beers before getting up and going into town for some serious drinking. Then the same on Sundays to recover from Saturday, but usually no more drinking after breakfast about 10 a.m. as the pubs were generally shut on Sundays, but not always in some areas due to (a) our then strange laws about pubs being able to serve travellers (which meant that everyone who wanted a drink on Sundays just went to a pub 20 miles or whatever it was from home and said they were travelling and signed the travellers' book) and (b) cops who turned a blind eye, and in a couple of cases were getting pretty close to blind with us in some outback pubs.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •