NZ Army evaluating the FN SCAR

scar_011_tm-tfb

A credible source told me that the New Zealand Army has been evaluating the FN SCAR rifle as a possible replacement for the Steyr AUG.

FN SCAR (FN Promotional Photo)

My source also told me that there has also been a lot of talk in the NZ Army about adopting 7.62mm rifles. The troops who have been deployed in Afghanistan are not happy with the 5.56mm performance. They, unlike the US and recently the British, they do not have a 7.62x51mm chambered semi-automatic in a designated marksmen role.

There is also talk of adopting a 40mm revolving grenade launcher and replacing the 1.5x Steyr scopes with rails and ACOGs.




Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • AnointedSword

    I like our system. Mainly because a smaller round instead of a cannon makes more sense for closer combat. Faster followup shots, weight concerns, etc…

    Now for the long range desert shots, be my guest…use a 50cal if you have to. Having a man or two with a bigger bore makes sense over there. I believe the Spec Ops, Navy Seals, SAS, and a few others know what they are talking about. NZ? Do they even have an army? lol JK:)

  • jdun1911

    Most NZ in Afghanistan are SAS I believe. They should have 7.62 platform(s). Those that are not SAS are probably POG.

    It’s only a matter of time with countries that were early adopter to the bullpup to move back to conventional design. I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure NZ Special OPS use AR and not AUG.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      jdun1911, my blog post refers to regular army. I am sure the SAS, like Delta/Seals/etc, get whatever they want and probably have 7.62mm rifle already. I don’t know numbers, but I am sure NZ has more regular troops and engineers than they do SAS deployed.

  • ???
  • subase

    Well that is surprising because the Aug has a standard 20 inch barrel and it’s as short as the M4.

    So I think this demand is proof of the longer range power and penetration of the .308 that’s needed in the longer distances encountered in Afghanistan.

    Yep just another sign that even with a 20 inch barrel the 5.56 still sucks.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @ jdun1911

    “It’s only a matter of time with countries that were early adopter to the bullpup to move back to conventional design.”

    If so, that’s likely to be for other reasons than free choice. For instance neither the UK nor France now has a small-arms industry to speak of, so for their next-generation replacement rifles they will have to buy from elsewhere. And apart from the 1st-generation Steyr, the only European bullpup is the FN F2000, which has some handling peculiarities likely to rule it out for the BA, at least.

    European gun developments these days are strongly influenced by the US, and as the US military like traditional rather than bullpup designs, what you see is guns like the FN SCAR and HK 416/7, which are tailored to meet US preferences. So that’s basically what other western nations have to choose from.

    Where you get countries with their own small-arms industries the choices are often different: Israel, China, Singapore…

  • LaBiche

    @Tony Williams

    You forgot the French FAMAS.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      LaBiche, the FAMAS is dead. The French are looking for an alternative.

  • subase

    @ jdun1911
    “It’s only a matter of time with countries that were early adopter to the bullpup to move back to conventional design.”

    I also think the development of bullet technology will help. The U.S is coming out with it’s new socom round, and bullets for the .308 caliber are much more accurate and consistent than they were in the past.

    The bullpups only real big advantage is in indoor combat distances. Which in highly populated highly urban areas like Israel, Singapore and to a degree China is mandatory. They can and do reap huge benefits. With quick change barrel rifle system like the Scar and Beretta ARX-160 though, even this advantage can be matched on some level.

    Saying that, once more advanced optics become standard they will enable soldiers to reach out even further, then bullpups will again become more popular to take advantage of the distance. The U.S may lead the charge this time.

  • Mike

    I am confused? Do you mean to say that the regular NZ Army is looking to completely replace the AUG or they are looking to supplement the AUG with the possible SCAR-H for the DMR role?

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      Mike, I am passing on what I was told. They are eveluating the SCAR, and considering a 7.62mm DMR rifle. Maybe they considering the SCAR for one of these roles, maybe both, I don’t know.

  • mr_lorenco

    its the same as with the FAL in its time .the US reject it ,and the whole world starts testing them ,and maybe in the future the SCAR will have the same fate as the FAL ,who knows….

  • Lance

    I don’t see the AUG going away. I think like SOCOM They want a 7.62mm platform to have a DMR. Though a M-110 and or M-14, FAL weapons are FAR FAR superior to current FN rifles.

    AT Tony Williams
    I wouldn’t call China’s QZB95 a great design it is a export failure and many rumors said it was a design imposed by the state. And the TAVOR is great for the West bank but hasn’t gone well in Lebanon and Golan Hights ares of operations. The Israelis have used a Bullpup for a good environment for a Bullpup in the west bank and left the conventional rifle for areas that need conventional rifles.

  • jdun1911

    Tony,

    It’s by free choice. I don’t see why not. For example NZ could have bought another bullpup design from Israel or other countries. These early adopters realized that bullpup have to many disadvantages to justified one advantage which isn’t much in the first place. The main force is following their Special force that have dropped the bullpup for traditional design a long time ago.

    Israel, China, Singapore, etc are not early adopters. The best fighters in the world does not use bullpup and you have to wonder why.

    I’m sure the majority of NZ or close to it are Special Ops. The last time I checked NZ had less than 200 people on the ground. Other than the major three ally forces in Afghanistan most other countries deployed small specialized units (not necessary Special OPS).

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      jdun1911, the SAS are the equivalent to Delta, according to a news article I blogged a while, their deployment details are all top secret. Those 200 people listed would include SAS stats.

  • Peter

    I whant to know what the aug is not doing for them beside in being in 5.56 and the scar having a 7.62 big brother maybe this will encourage styer to make a 7.62 aug platform

  • theINsider

    My understanding is that a 7.62 platform is being looked into, and would be used in a new DM role not as a replacment for the IW Steyr. Like many things this has been in the pipeline for a while but whether or not it ever occurs is anybodies guess.

    An ArmyNews late last year mentioned in an article on an exercise at the time; “Several trial weapons were used on the Exercise. The weapons trialled were a 7.62mm C9 Minimi, a 7.62mm FN SCAR, a H&K 417 and an enhanced Steyr”. The article also has a picture an IW Steyr mounted with an ACOG and FN SCAR. The story is online here; http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/news/army-news/405/ebt.htm

  • Gage Reckart

    @Steve, I thought you said that the French dumping the FAMAS was a rumor on one of your older blog posts. But if they are/were, it’s likely that it will/would be replaced with the M4 series, SIG series, or HK416.

  • kmle

    “They, unlike the US and recently the British, they do not have a 7.62x51mm chambered semi-automatic in a designated marksmen role.”

    They, unlike the US, the British + their neighbors across the Tasman ….

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @ subase:

    “The bullpups only real big advantage is in indoor combat distances.”

    I would describe the key advantage as being the combination of a short gun (for urban fighting) with a long barrel (for open spaces), thereby doing the job of a rifle and a carbine in one weapon.

    “Saying that, once more advanced optics become standard they will enable soldiers to reach out even further, then bullpups will again become more popular to take advantage of the distance. The U.S may lead the charge this time.”

    I agree. Advanced optics might also promote the adoption of a long-range intermediate cartridge to take advantage of the range capability. Which would itself encourage the use of bullpups, since an all-purpose cartridge would make most sense in an all-purpose weapon.

    @ Lance:

    “I wouldn’t call China’s QZB95 a great design it is a export failure and many rumors said it was a design imposed by the state.”

    My point is that having observed the use of the first generation bullpups for a couple of decades, the Chinese decided that that was the way to go. Whether they made a success of the design is a separate issue.

    “And the TAVOR is great for the West bank but hasn’t gone well in Lebanon and Golan Hights ares of operations. The Israelis have used a Bullpup for a good environment for a Bullpup in the west bank and left the conventional rifle for areas that need conventional rifles.”

    The version of the Tavor which the Israelis have adopted is a very short-barrelled carbine, which makes the gun incredibly short overall (like a snubby SMG), at the cost of long-range performance. They could obviously change that if they wanted, and provide a version with a full-length rifle barrel which is still shorter than the M4 Carbine. The difference with current designs is about eight inches: in other words, a bullpup the same overall length as an M4 could have a 22.5 inch barrel.

    @ jdun1911

    “These early adopters realized that bullpup have to many disadvantages to justified one advantage which isn’t much in the first place.”

    There is no evidence that I’m aware of that NZ (or anyone else for that matter) has specifically stated that they don’t want another bullpup on principle: it is more a matter of looking closely at which guns are currently “state of the art”, with a strong preference for guns from well-established makers in allied countries: the US or NW Europe.

    I explore the pros and cons of bullpups in detail in this article: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/bullpups.htm As a result I believe that the bullpup has important advantages and, with the design options now available, no significant disadvantages.

    “The main force is following their Special force that have dropped the bullpup for traditional design a long time ago.”

    Special forces everywhere go their own way, and like to specify their own distinctive kit. In particular, they like lightweight guns which can be tailored to their own requirements. Until recently, no bullpup offered the flexibility of Picatinny rails (or the other accessories available for the M-16 family), which was enough to rule them out.

    “Israel, China, Singapore, etc are not early adopters.”

    Yes, I know. My point was that these countries had observed the pros and cons of bullpups in service with the early adopters, and decided that this was the right way to go.

    “The best fighters in the world does not use bullpup and you have to wonder why.”

    I am intrigued. Who are “the best fighters in the world”? Or perhaps that question would just derail this thread :-)

  • Tim

    I would be glad to see the Steyr go. It’s a bloody awful rifle. I don’t like the reciprocating cocking handle of the SCAR, but it’s definitely a step up from the AUG.

  • Lance

    WHo know what ever happens I dont see AUG 88 go I see a possible DMR comming. I do see a war comming here again over Bullpup v normal gun and let the war begain.

    I dont like Bullpups the TAVOR and QZB-95 are dismal flops in my opinion. That opion like others here and the debat will \never go away.

  • subase

    @Tony Williams
    I’m just saying there is virtually no difference between the lethality of a 14 inch barrel and 20 inch barrel firing the 5.56 cartridge at indoor distances. The Israeli’s admit this so their new standard rifle is the Micro Tavor with 13 inch barrel. Their regular infantry are now carrying around even weaker rifles than the M4 but superb weapons for indoors and built up area environments. The Micro Tavor is only 23 inches long, 3 inches shorter than an MP5! and seven inches shorter than an M4. And with the U.S’s new Socom round, lethality will be better than it was before. Amazing stuff.

    In contrast, for long distances the 5.56 round has been severely outclassed. It reached it’s peak with the M4, and is currently being refined for use in shorter barrels at shorter distances. In contrast we’ve had a resurgence in .308 rifles for marksmen use in the military, which with better modern rifles , ammunition, improved optics and training, are now really effective and a force multiplier. Currently the Scar Heavy is the ideal DMR rifle due to it’s light weight, reliability and sufficient accuracy. I’d say it’s only a matter of time before Australia gets their own too.

    And the Scar heavy has the added bonus of easily interchangeable length barrels. So when it’s time to kick in that door, leave the pea shooter at the base and use a 13 inched barreled 7.62x51mm rifle. Now that’s change you can believe in.

  • http://N/A JamesW

    The ADF has recently purchased close to $2 million dollars worth of HK417 rifles. Perhaps our Kiwi brothers will follow suite.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      James, I did not know that. Do you have a link to info about that purchase?

  • subase

    Actually replace ‘sufficient accuracy’ with ‘superb accuracy’ for a combat rifle. Easily 1 MOA from reports.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @subase

    I don’t disagree with anything in your last post. While we’re stuck with 5.56mm and 7.62mm, a short carbine for urban fighting in 5.56mm and a bigger rifle for long-range work in 7.62mm make perfect sense.

    My argument is only that it would be preferable to have one (bullpup) gun and (long-range intermediate) ammo combination, since that could cover all the bases with just one weapon, and would bring a lot of advantages with very few penalties.

  • http://N/A JamesW
    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      JamesW, thanks for that.

  • subase

    And according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK417

    The HK417 also has a reliable 50 round drum magazine. As well 20 round G36 type polymer mags. Now that’s what I call flexible.

  • snmp

    The M-110 /SR25 is not ruged weapon, that’s may be good police & sport rifle but not an military rifle. French SF have buy a batch of tis weapon and move to their old HK G3 now replace by HK417.

    Bullpup is very nice, with good balance, small size with long barel. You could use it from armor car. For replacement of FAMAS, the weapon need to could launch rifle grenade and assurancy to 300M with iron sight that’s mean no AR15 & no AK. In plus, the French army have not found the HKG36 & SIG SG550 enough ruged for regular soldier ……

  • Lance

    @ SNMP The FAMAS isnt going away the French Army is looking at the Navy G2 for possible adoption only SF are buying HK G3s and 416/17s for replacement.

    Looks like from the JamesW like the HK417 will be the DMR for the Aussies. the 417 is far surperior to the SCAR H.

  • jdun1911

    Tony Williams,

    There is no such thing as “state of the art” small arms. Even the bullpup design is over 100 years old. What’s new are the accessories that these small arms carried.

    If there is no disadvantage than why does Special Operators, Private Contractors, Tournament competitors, etc do not use bullpup? There is a reason why and I won’t listed all the disadvantage because it freaking long.

    You look at high level competition tournaments. These people know how to shoot and non of them use bullpup as far as I know. These people make their living out of winning tournaments and they will spend whatever it is needed to get the slightest marginal advantage they can.

    Special Operators and Private contractors goes their own way because they have the freedom to do it. They pick the best weapons to do the job and it’s clearly not bullpup design. They pick the weapon that their lives depend on it because any thing less it might cost them their life.

    Big military have a tradition of following special operator. It takes time tho.

    Who are the best fighter in the world? Special Operation people. They get the best training and pick the best weapons. Sure there are some countries that have better Special Operators than others but to me I treat them the same because they are tip of the spear.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      jdun1911, I respectively disagree. Just look at the weapon *systems* we have today compared to the 80’s. Optics, rail systems, night vision, much better accuracy , better ammunition etc.

  • subase

    Considering the full length rail and polymer magazines of the HK417 it works out to be a lighter weapon system too.

    That tender, works out to be probably 1000 rifles, is that enough for the Australian army?. (28 000)

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      subase, probably enough for their Afghan forces.

  • subase

    @jdun1911
    There does exist ‘state of the art’ small arms. The best example would be the first new generation mature bullpup design made by Kel tec called the RFB. This rifle will in a few years start seeing some use in the hands of Spec Ops, because it’s a superior more advanced weapon system. (granted not nearly as optimized for heavy military use as the Scar Heavy and HK17, but that’s natural since it’s still a civilian firearm)

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    @jdun1911

    “There is no such thing as “state of the art” small arms.”

    Oh, OK then. I’ll substitute “high level of modularity with quick-change barrels, adjustable LOP stocks, Picatinny rails on top, bottom and sides, high use of polymer to keep the weight down, ergonomics and control systems developed from long experience to give the fastest handling, thoroughly designed and tested in adverse conditions to keep going no matter what”…. but it’s simpler just to say “state of the art”, because I think that most people here know what that means :-)

    “If there is no disadvantage than why does Special Operators, Private Contractors, Tournament competitors, etc do not use bullpup? There is a reason why and I won’t listed all the disadvantage because it freaking long.”

    I already answered that in my previous response to you: “Special forces everywhere go their own way, and like to specify their own distinctive kit. In particular, they like lightweight guns which can be tailored to their own requirements. Until recently, no bullpup offered the flexibility of Picatinny rails (or the other accessories available for the M-16 family), which was enough to rule them out.” The point is, Special Forces choose systems rather than guns, and there’s a kind of circularity here: the M16 was the first modern, lightweight gun, ideal for SF, so it became hugely popular and a wide variety of accessories and mods were developed for it, which made it even more popular…so any gun intended to replace it must offer similar features, controls and handling.

    You needn’t bother to list the disadvantages of bullpups, I’ve already done it here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/bullpups.htm
    Along with an even longer list of counter-arguments. I will be the first to admit that the perfect bullpup has not yet been made, but I show clearly how it could be. The only substantial reason to reject the bullpup layout in principle (as opposed to objecting to specific features of existing guns) is personal preference – that’s what people are used to.

    “You look at high level competition tournaments. These people know how to shoot and non of them use bullpup as far as I know. These people make their living out of winning tournaments and they will spend whatever it is needed to get the slightest marginal advantage they can.”

    You mean they wear full combat kit and body armour, have to jump in and out of cramped helo and AFV interiors, go from room clearing at one moment to engaging targets 500+ metres away the next using the same gun, all the while having their guns blasted with grit and plastered with mud? I’m impressed – I had no idea US competitions were so realistic! In reality, of course, combat is very different from competitions.

  • Lance

    I think there has been improvements in firearms over the last few years the Trijicon ACOG and lazer sights are BIG help. I think there more accorries imporvments in the last 20 years. I think Bullpups and standerd rilfes have there ups and downs. I think the QZB-95 and the Aug-77/88 are crap from the get go. The TAVOR is still not proven in combat outside of Police actions in the cities of Israel. And for that is fine but will suffer in open combat in Golan or fouth lebenon thats why Israeli troops still also have M-16s. Now that I gutted some sucky bullpups some good designs are SA-80 with HK rebuilts upgrades. Brits like them in CQB in Iraq but suffers like the TAVOR in Afghanistain. The Ukrianian Vper is a cool design useing the AK-74 in a bullpup for armord crews and Spec Ops thats a good design.

    As for standerd rifles the M-16, M-4, G-36, Ak-74, K-2. and AR-70 great wepaons. The FNC R-4 and Spanish 5,56mm CENTME not so good. Each has there ups and downs.

  • Rijoenpial

    Lance’s quote: “the 417 is far surperior to the SCAR H”…

    A question and a fact and another question, Lance:

    QUESTION: How do you sustain with facts what you just said?

    and

    FACT: The German army themselves ditched the sniper version of this ‘far superior’ gun, as you put it…

    So

    QUESTION: Who should I trust more, you or the german Army, the home country of HK?

    Cheers!

  • Lance

    @Rejoinpal

    I know your a SCAR lover and cry every time I say somehting. Im not going to argue with you over which is better since Delta Force and Norway and Turkey are useing HKs.

  • Emperor Fabulous

    Lance: “The 417 is far surperior to the SCAR H.”

    When something truly is ‘far superior’ to the other options, it ends up replacing those other options pretty quickly. Like when the bolt action rifle came along, it quickly replaced all other types being used by the militaries around the world. Since the HK417 isn’t replacing all other options, it really can’t be said to be far superior.

    jdun1911: “Special Operators and Private contractors goes their own way because they have the freedom to do it. They pick the best weapons to do the job and it’s clearly not bullpup design.”

    When given the choice, people will pick what they are familiar with. The Special Forces around the world start off just the same as every other soldier so they still have to learn how to shoot with their military’s rifle, so when it comes time to pick one (and I’m not sure they get to pick anything they like) they’ll most likely pick a known over an unknown as they won’t have to relearn/retrain with their rifle.

  • Jeff

    The NZ Army begged some moth balled FN FAL’s (SLR’s) from the NZ Navy that the navy had been prudent enough to keep. These are in Afghanistan.

  • Jay

    I find it amusing to see internet know-it-alls trying to school weapons experts like Tony Williams how things work in the military small arms world. :)

    Lance, honestly, I don’t think you read about firearms as much as Tony Williams wrote in books.

  • Steve

    jdun1911;
    “You look at high level competition tournaments. These people know how to shoot and non of them use bullpup as far as I know. These people make their living out of winning tournaments and they will spend whatever it is needed to get the slightest marginal advantage they can.”

    While they spend what they need (or can) to get a slight marginal advantage the only people I know of that make a “living out of winning tournaments” are the military shooters who get their normal pay for duties that include practice and going to the matches. Unless things have really changed in the last 5-8 years the prize money/prizes for winning major tournaments barely cover the ammo and entry fees and maybe food. Travel expenses and purchase of new rifles or parts (high power barrels) are a bit beyond the usual prize money return let alone rent, car payments and health insurance, what most people would consider “making a living”.

  • D

    Special Forces teams utilize the M4 carbine because of the abundance of spare parts and flexibility of the weapons system; the H&K 416 has become relatively popular with Delta Force, State Department, etc because of its similarity to the M4 platform with improvements.

    NZ would do well accepting the SCAR. A comprehensive study conducted that was mentioned on this site (AR15 vs SCAR) pretty much proved that FN did their homework when designing the SCAR and it was not fielded by the 75th Ranger Regiment for nothing. As for arguments against polymers: polymers have been proven to be stronger than aluminum and are among the strongest materials that humans can produce. The SCAR’s free floating barrel, bolt, and gas system allow the weapon to be highly accurate, reliable, and cool operating, even after prolonged firing. The SCAR is designed for a gas piston design, which i believe the AR15 is not designed to use (though in the defense of gas piston AR15s, there are easy fixes for the so called “carrier tilt” that occurs).

    It baffles me that all of the criticism of the SCAR is hearsay instead of documentation. Funny how that happens. And no, the 417 is not “vastly superior” to the SCAR. The SCAR-H has superior accuracy and reliability than the 417, which explains why it hasn’t been adopted in large numbers despite being released sooner than the SCAR-H.

    I have to side with Tony Williams. As soon as lightweight, modular bullpups are produced, they will become more and more popular. the Tavor is an excellent weapon, as is the AUG (especially ones from microtech). Bullpups have pretty compelling advantages in modern warfare (though i vehemently disagree that bayonet fighting is obsolete).

  • Rohan Wilson

    @D
    For your interest.

    Australia is updating the F88 to the EF-88. It has many of the above (including free floating barrel) but not forward ejection.

    http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?79-EF88-Rail-Configuration

    As for bayonet fighting, less than 1% of casualties are the result of “cold steel”. The places that you get close enough to need it you can’t swing it. Why add 8″ of steel when armies are cutting barrel lengths. Even in WW1 an entrenching tool was better and Stalingrad the same. The “31st bullet” is best saved for stopping PWs grabbing you weapon.

  • D

    Rohan, i absolutely love the Steyr AUG :) one of the best firearms decisions ive ever made was purchasing a Microtech AUG, though the only flaw ive found is that the weapon has proprietary magazines (which are insanely reliable ill add). I believe with a adjustable ejection port on either side, foward ejection is unnecessary. Nevertheless, “reports” about the Australian military disliking the AUG are purely unsubstantiated; my experience with Australian troops is that their weapons may be funny looking (the owen SMG or AUG), though they and their equipment performs admirably when needed. When coupled with modern rail systems, the AUG is a very desirable and effective weapon.

    I prefer to stick with hypothetical future conflicts rather than past actions when it comes to bayonets. War on the korean peninsula, for example, would demonstrate the need for bayonets. Unfortunately, much of the Army feels that bayonets are obsolete, though the Marine Corps strongly opposes this mindset (with justifiable reason). A good, unneeded bayonet fighter beats a soldier that needs to fight upclose but cannot.

  • Rohan Wilson

    @ D

    You have gain my interest. You are only person on this blog that owns a bull-pup and can really compare bull-pull to conventional layout.

    The word from my mates still in the Army is the F88s are just plain worn out and the internal plastic parts are flimsy. Remember the M16A1 had many of the same faults.

    In the dust test 260 odd jams of the 800 odd in the M4 were due to magazines. I found the M16 magazines hopeless. I believe the US Army are going to plastic finally. Even the Russians had plastic mags in A-stan in the 80s!

    The Australian Army is keeping bayonet fighting.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/diggers-get-to-keep-bayonets-as-weapons/story-e6frg6nf-1225847179104

    “B Company’s 6 platoon were ordered to destroy a machine gun position. They fixed bayonets and rose yelling. Enemy bullets tore through some and forced the rest to ground. Then 5 platoon received a similar command; to advance 30 metres and try to outflank the same gun. Platoon commander John O’Halloran told his men to fix bayonets but most no longer carried the weapon, others could not hear him over the din of gunfire. On his order 5 platoon ran forward with a roar only to be cut down almost immediately. Hidden machine guns opened up on the right flank, leaving eight members of the nine-man-strong 1 section either killed or wounded. The Australians had advanced about 25 metres, and half the men in the forward two sections were casualties. 5 platoon was almost surrounded and taking heavy fire”.

    http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/combat/bribie.php

    That was the Australian Army’s last bayonet charge.
    3 dead, 5 wounded out of 9 in the lead (point) section (squad).
    8 Diggers died that day, leave bayonet charges for WW1.

  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

    There was a successful bayonet charge by British forces in Iraq in 2004, but that was a very rare exception! See: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865

    You will note, however, that the troops had the SA80 bullpup – clearly, the length of the rifle and bayonet are not factors in the success of such attacks.

  • chrisvankeeffe

    Everybody take five and calm down.
    You’ve all missed the essence of the problem.
    There is nothing wrong with an AUG,M4,SA80,HK, or any other standard piece
    of hardware in 5.56 used by TPBI (The Poor Bloody Infantry, for those that are unfamiliar with the phrase) in Afghanistan.
    The problem is that the 556 is a bloody useless round in this theatre.
    If anything positive should every come out of Afghanistan it will be the death knell of this cartridge.
    If the AUG,M4,SA80,HK were re-chambered for the 6.5Grendel we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
    The quicker the brass do this the more lives will be saved.
    And the DMR will become an historical anachronism.

  • Buck Adams

    I don’t think the 5.56mm round is totally useless. At certain distances it is rather effective and a grunt can tote around a large supply of cartridges. Too bad that long ago they did not decide to chamber the standard issue firearm in a caliber similar to .243 ( perfect IMO ). Also, keep in mind that the USSR decided to downsize their AK47’s caliber to something comparable to the 5.56mm when they went to the AK74 after gleaning information from the NVA on the effectiveness of the 5.56mm. If what I read is correct the Soviets made their 5.45mm more effective by making their projectiles into fragmentary rounds. For some reason the USA abides by a by-law that prohibits such ammo. The 5.56mm is not a consistent performer. I wonder if the 7mm rifles would even be necessary if the standard caliber was increased to 6.5mm or 6.8mm.

  • Chris

    I have indeed seen a photo of an NZ Army soldier with a FN SCAR. Its on the NZ Army website.

  • http://bizsugar.com/u/1844k Conan Spaulding

    Really enjoyed this article thanks.

  • jugy

    Its a DMR purchase. They eventually went with the LMT 308 MWS.

    Done.

  • slobster

    bring back the SLR they were taken out prematurely they should have supplemented SLR’s with a few AUG’s