Confirmed, LMT to supply NZDF with CQB16

Lewis Machine and Tool has won a contract from the New Zealand Defense Forces to completely replace the Steyr AUG A1 with their 5.56x45mm CQB16 platform, coming on top of eight competitors. The contract is for 8,800 rifles, while the Army has around 6,500 troops. This news is groundbreaking, as I would certainly say, LMT is one of the first of the American and smaller based AR manufacturers to bid on and win a contract to completely replace the existing service rifle with a modern military. They already had great success with their 7.62x51mm L129A1 and the British Army, but this contract is supplying an entire army. Interestingly enough, the rifle beat out H&Ks and Sig Sauer’s entries (I would assume they submitted their piston op guns, there goes the piston vs gas debate!). Either way, big news for the AR world. From Jane’s Defense-

The New Zealand MoD was authorised in May 2014 to undertake a tender to purchase 8,800 ‘off-the-shelf’ replacement rifles and associated accessories. A key requirement is that the new weapon with suitable sights should be able to detect, identify, and engage adversaries at both close quarters and at distances of up to 500 m in daylight.

A request for proposals closed on 12 November 2014, and following an evaluation eight companies were selected for trials that were undertaken between 2 March and 1 June 2015. The trials tested rifles provided by Beretta Defense Technologies (represented by a local branch); Ceska Zbrojovka; Colt Canada Corp; FN Herstal; Steyr Mannlicher; SIG Sauer (represented by New Zealand dealer XTEK Ltd); Heckler & Koch; and LMT.

IHS Jane’s understands that LMT offered CQB16 variants with 406 mm and 457 mm barrels for testing.

The MoD notification said the new rifle is expected to be introduced into service by 2016-17.


The current Steyr AUG A1, about to be phased out by the LMT CQB16. Notice the “Green Dazzler” mounted on the soldier’s picatinny rail. When properly selected, and activated by depressing the red button, the dazzler sends out an extremely high frequency green laser, that is supposed to be aimed at an on rushing car that could potentially be a suicide bomber. The laser is supposed to bounce around inside the car, blinding the driver and changing the direction of travel. Its effectiveness hasn’t been completely proven. 


Infantry Marine, based in the Midwest. Specifically interested in small arms history, development, and usage within the MENA region and Central Asia. To that end, I run Silah Report, a website dedicated to analyzing small arms history and news out of MENA and Central Asia.

Please feel free to get in touch with me about something I can add to a post, an error I’ve made, or if you just want to talk guns. I can be reached at


  • Gordon J Davis Jr

    “The New Zealand MoD was authorised in May 2014 to undertake a tender to purchase 8,800 ‘off-the-shelf’ replacement rifles and associated accessories.”

    COTS rifles? So they’re buying S/As instead of F/As?

    • Ken

      There are commercial, off the shelf full autos too. They’re made for LE, SOT FFL’s, and now the NZ military. Off the shelf just means that they’re buying an existing product, rather than having a variant made to their specifications.

    • Joshua

      The only difference between a semi and auto M4 is the hammer, safety, and auto sear in the lower.

      • Gordon J Davis Jr

        And the lower receiver dimensions are slightly different.

        • Joshua

          True a auto sear won’t fit into a standard lower.

  • Yallan

    I wonder if Australia will move towards LMT too for it’s special forces, 2050 active members. (They currently use Colt M4s).

    The 16 inch barrel is interesting too, clearly they want the longer range. But can they still get out of humvees easily? And is the cost for fighting indoors worth it? The 500m stipulation is the longest range requirement of any service rifle I’ve heard of. (Even the Swiss require only 300m)

    • Ken

      The Janes article said that LMT offered both barrel lengths for testing, meaning probably the CQB14.5 as well. I too wonder why they chose to go with the 16″ barrel.

      • Yallan

        The M16 should have been 16inch barrel not 20inch. The velocity drop off is very small. Velocity begins to drop off more dramatically after 16inches, that is the ‘sweet spot’. Alot of weight and length saved. It’s amazing it has taken this long for a military to adopt the 16inch barrel. But this goes to show you New Zealand knows what it is doing protecting all those warm cuddly sheep. I’m sure Netherlands regrets it’s Colt C7 purchase, 20 inch heavy profile barrel, and probably twice as expensive, ouch!

      • dave741966

        Have another read the two barrels were 406mm = 16 inch & 457mm = 18 inch we are not going any smaller than 16 inch. Ive posted this above the RFT was for a 20 inch Barrel LMT dont provide that so obviously sent the next best thing a 18 inch for the trial.

        • Ken

          Whoops, I need to learn to convert metric in my head, haha.

          • Kivaari

            Good luck. The dividing of 600mm by 25.4, leaves me looking for a calculator. They work faster than my calcified brain.

    • Joe

      False: The USMC qualifies at ranges from 7 yards to 500 yards for all personal, even those in non combat support roles.
      The M16 has a listed effective range of 600 M, and the M4 550 M.

      • Phil Hsueh

        Part true, we don’t start at 7 yards, at least not when I was in, when I was in we started at 200, then went to 300, and then to 500.

        • Joe

          Correct. Current setup is BOO at 36 yards,
          Confirm at 100/200 yards (optional).
          Qualify on Table 1 at 200/300/500 yards.
          Qualify on Table 2 from 7 yards to 100 yards in a watered down close quarters battle qual. 100 yard targets are “moving” .
          An expert on table 1 that unqs. On table 2 is now a marksman.
          And a marksman on table 1 can make up the difference on table 2 and rate the expert badge.

          All of this is circa 2012 when I EAS’d

    • Ajax

      It’s not that hard to maneuver with a 16″ barrel, especially with practice and using high ready. While a 12.5″ might be better for units doing only or mostly CQB work, the majority of the troops would be far better served with the 16″ barrel.

    • dave741966

      600m is for section fire by Infantry its part of our standard training, getting in and out of vehicles only requires practice

  • Bill

    I’m really interested in the comment about the dazzler – was considering whether they could be utilized where DDs might be inappropriate: “Its effectiveness hasn’t been completelynproven.” I guess there must be the occasional really loud noise.

    Never thought I’d hear a 16 inch barrel being implied as being “long.”

    • Joshua

      Shooting the driver works to usually.

      • nadnerbus

        Generation Kill:

        “We’ve got to find a better way of stopping these cars.”

        “Walt’s got a great way LT. Shoot the driver in the head, stop the car.”

        I laugh my ass off every time. Frigging brutal.

  • Al

    Interesting, they chose the MRP 16″ – that has mid length gas. Gotta be the first military to adopt a general issue middy. It should prove reliable, mine is.

    • dave741966

      No AI we haven’t chosen the MRP 16 Janes are guessing the contract negotiations are still on going. NZ RFT stated a barrel of 502mm or 20 inch as standard since LMT did provide a 18inch barrel then that will be the new standard length for the NZDF. Only Tier 2 soldiers will be getting both barrels its called the arms room concept for the Infantry

  • thedonn007

    It seems like a step backwards from the Steyr AUG.

    • Shmoe

      Really?! How so?

      • thedonn007

        Well, the Steyr AUG is of course a bullpup, it has the quick change barrel and it is piston driven. Although I suppose that the LMT has a quick change barrel as well, but it requires tools to do so and and not quite as quick as the Steyr AUG.

        • Tom

          Bullpup Vs Conventional you can argue all day and all night. In the end they each have pro and cons and people prefer one or the other.

          Quick change barrel how often are soldiers going to change barrels? I suspect not very often, certainly they are not going to do it under fire. Its a useful thing for the civilian shooter but has limited utility in a military setting (except rapid fire weapons of course).

          As for the piston well as above you can argue all you like but there is no definitive answer. It should be pointed out that the Vietnam era issues with the M16 were limited to the American forces (and IIRC the Marines who were for the most part better trained never had issues with fouling ether) the New Zelanders and Aussies never had such issues (nether did the other contemporary users) so there is not the “cultural hesitation” with DI system.

          Once you remove reliability concerns you are left with the issue of suppressors and lets be honest if you want to do serious social work with a suppressed rifle 5.56 is not the way to go. So its hardly a relevant concern. And of course many manufacturers have made perfectly functional DI suppressor solutions anyway.

          • ostiariusalpha

            The Marines had problems also, but they worked hard to mitigate them. The Vietnam era M16/5.56 NATO package was a revolutionary concept that was too quickly and ineptly implemented, especially in regards to the ammunition. Remington cheated on the claimed performance of their rifle powder and Winchester’s powder was horribly mis-formulated, if you wanted to design a powder that purposefully fouled the gun’s gas system with calcification you could not have done a much better job than Winchester did. And the brass casings were too thin-walled, being designed for less pressure than was standardized for the 5.56 NATO, resulting in extraction problems when the the cases would stick in the chamber. The M16 was basically Microsofted, with the soldiers acting as beta testers during live combat. But it’s just easier to blame it on the Stoner gas system instead of the underhandedness and incompetence of Remington and Winchester.

          • Kivaari

            Blame the army for failure to have Colt chrome the bore and chamber. Blame the army for switching from IMR powder to ball powder. Colt protested and was shut down. Blame the army for failing to train the troops or supply training manuals regarding cleaning. Issue a rifle without proper instructions and the troops will have issues. Issue M1917 rifles with a dumb ejector spring, and troops will have defective rifles in the trenches. Issue a M1903 with a two piece firing pin, and it will break too soon. At least the Germans had quick change firing pins, with a tool built into the stock.

          • 1) Stoner didn’t think chrome lining was necessary. Thus, SecDef McNamara’s representatives to the M16 Technical Coordinating Committee would have balked at the added expense and delay. Remember, the OSD thought that the rifle was essentially ready for production and fielding as a turn-key Commercial Off the Shelf/Non-Developmental Item. The Army’s requests to further study changes were typically treated by the OSD as stalling tactics.

            2) Remington first brought up the topic of changing from IMR 4475 to WC846 in 1963 for loading USAF contract ammo. Colt noticed the effects on cyclic rate in early 1964 when they got their first lots of WC846-loaded ammo from the USAF. They reported as much to the TCC before the Army decided to qualify WC846 as an alternative powder for M193, along with CR 8136 (another IMR type). In April 1964, Colt’s senior product engineer Foster Sturtevant even wrote in an internal report that the higher gas port pressures with WC846 were “in no way harmful to the AR-15” and would lead to more positive functioning of the rifle.

          • Kivaari

            Suppressors have great applications just in normal combat engagements and while clearing buildings. Firing a 5.56 without a can in confined spaces is hard on hearing. The VA says hearing loss is one of its most common complaints among vets. Damaged backs and hearing leads to old duffers like me needing hearing aids and 6 back surgeries, 3 in the last 6 months. I recommend not falling off roofs, getting hit by cars, or standing around when cannons are fired.

          • Tom

            I can see the use of suppressors being an advantage in general. However if we are going to use a suppressed rifle for military applications then 5.56mm is not the way to go. Also if you are going to be using a suppressors as pretty much a permanent solution then rather than off and on then you simple adjust the buffer to suit.

          • Kivaari

            The idea is to quiet the muzzle blast. The super sonic crack isn’t a big deal. Suppressors help soldiers simply preserve hearing. The idea of the .300 BLK subsonic is for very specialized uses. A .300 is pretty useless beyond 150 yards. So, if all you are doing is clearing houses it has a place. Since the 5.56 works at greater ranges it makes more sense. If you are working in a team, having 12 M4s gong off around you is overwhelming. With cans in place it makes for better communications and fewer VA claims.

          • CommonSense23

            The marines actually had some of the most issues with the M16 early on due to receiving almost no training on the weapon, and some of them having their first experience with the gun sometimes within hours of going on a patrol.

          • Toxie

            Di suppresses much better (quieter) than piston because thrre isnt the piston vented to atmo. I have several suppressors and several guns (di/piston) and ALL of the piston guns are louder than the DI guns.

        • Shmoe

          Yeah, having handled an AUG I would sat that the coolest thing about it (beside looking like a space gun) is the QD barrel system. I also understand it returns to zero relatively well.

          But I think (and I’m not alone) it has some serious flaws as a rifle. Leaving aside the bullpup thing (which I like, actually): The problems have mostly to do with the trigger. Beyond the fact that bullpups already have a problem to solve in that area, the folks at Steyr decided it would be a good idea use plastic parts in the trigger pack. That’s right, a combat rifle with MOVING PARTS MADE OF PLASTIC! Then they decided, instead of just including a selector/safety-switch, to try and include a “progressive trigger”; that is, in order to fire semiauto, you don’t pull the trigger all the way back. As you might imagine, all this leads to a less than stellar trigger.

          Leaving aside other issues: why do you assume that having a piston gas system automatically make it a better rifle? I would say, unless it’s expected to have an unusually high cyclic (say 1,000 rounds an hour), that the AR’s DGI system us preferable to most others’. Less moving parts, lower recoil, etc.

          • Kivaari

            DI guns work. They use simple and proven designs. They don’t need extra parts that wear out.

        • Yallan

          Actually the quick change barrel system is largely useless in practice at least for military. And seems more of a dangerous liability in that military range safety encourages you take out the barrel to prove it’s empty, damaging the weapon over time. No wonder the new Australian improved steyr aug, F90 took out the quick change barrel system.

          • dave741966

            Thats incorrect that barrel removal procedure is only applied in Australia, NZ Army does not remove the barrel during safety checks so that blows that argument

          • Tom

            I think the point is that its [quick change barrel] just not that useful in a military context.

          • dave741966

            The point is NZ Army never used that option at all only internet warriors ever bring this up…Soldiers use the tools that they have not one in a company brochure

          • Kivaari

            We had a SFC go down the line with a cleaning rod, before we started our qualifications. At least no bore obstructions were present. Pulling a magazine and working the bolt, and having a visual inspection, limited loaded guns leaving the range.

        • Kivaari

          The need for a quick change barrel applies to belt fed machine guns.
          Changing rifle barrels is not required. A soldier will be issued the configuration best suited to the job. That would be a dedicated marksman style with a longer and heavier barrel and high grade optics. Original AUG optics were rely poor. Having been made by Swarovski, doesn’t ensure the best quality. When I first used the AUG, with all barrels including a 9mm conversion with a suppressor. it struck me as being a fun toy with awkward handling and terrible triggers.

    • Yallan

      Main issue is price. The new Australian steyr aug EF88 or F90 is probably at least 3 times more expensive So it was what caused this new rifle to be adopted. Also being AR derived it’s more compatible with Australian equipment. (Australian special forces currently use Colt M4)

    • Kivaari

      Not if you actually need to use the rifle. The AUG limits shooters needing to shoot left handed in combat and training. It is not a good choice for people actually engaged in combat. The AR pattern rifles are much better choices.

  • Lance

    Prof Bullpups suck, AR rock get over it tacti coolers!

    • iksnilol

      Wouldn’t really call it proof. Y’know, one event =/= data-

      They most likely changed it because the AUGs were 30 years old and had the fixed optic on them.

      • ostiariusalpha

        And expensive.

  • Ajax

    Any word on what optic will be used? I would love to see someone using a 1-4 or somesuch-especially if they free-float the barrel. Now that would make an awesome 7-500 yard tool.

    • dave741966

      Here you go Ajax;

      The Trijicon Advanced Combat Optic Gun-sight (ACOG) 4 x 32. TA31NZ-5.56 is the standard and will continue to be the standard Individual Weapon Sight (IWS) for the Crown IW.

  • Jason

    Good for LMT – they make great rifles.

  • Mark

    Kudos to LMT, delighted to see a smaller manufacturer succeed like this. You’d wonder if the piston guns were just too darned heavy. Quite a difference in weight between an AUG and a piston AR variant…

    • Kivaari

      There is no need for a piston on the AR pattern rifles. If they really had added value, they would be in use by military all over the world. DI has worked well on several rifles. The M16/M4s simply need troops to clean the things.

      • Joshua

        In all honesty the AR-15 doesn’t fit the definition of Direct Impingement. It never did and the definition was morphed to fit the AR-15, which oddly enough disqualifies the true DI rifles from fitting the definition of Direct Impingement…Most noteably the Ljungman and Mas, neither fit the current day of DI even though at one point they did.

        • Kivaari

          I’d disagree. The gas is delivered to the bolt carrier chamber. The MAS 49/56 and Ljungman do just hit the cup on the bolt carrier. Simpler design. The AR method delivers gas more uniformly. The bolt and carrier are driven apart with equal pressure, so the bolt isn’t tilted. Piston guns do cause the bolt to go in unwanted directions. The French and Swedes used heavy parts to overcome such forces. In particular the French rifles were some of the best DI rifles ever made. The Ljungman in my personal experience, and of those I know with these rifles, were very unreliable. The AG42B I had was in unissued condition, and it was hard to get two shots in a row with factory ammo. Either GI or commercial. The Hakim variant added a gas regulator, and I suspect they performed better, when clean. I never saw one that was clean, having half the desert inside.
          Another commenter, having a commercial business where these guns are used, gives a great reason to not use piston systems.

  • nadnerbus

    I handled an AUG at the LGS the other day for the first time. Good god is it sexy as hell. But it is a little awkward, at least in my hands, and the trigger is as bad as everyone says it is. I can definitely see why a Stoner platform would be desired over it in everyday use.

    I’d still love to own one, but 22 hundred bucks is probably out of my budget for the foreseeable future.

  • UnrepentantLib

    The New Zealand army has 6,500 men. Just out of curiosity, I looked up how big the LAPD is. It’s just over 10,000. Still, it’s kind of neat for LMT to be able to say “We’re equipping an entire army.” I remember long ago reading an article in one of my dad’s “American Rifleman” magazines from the 1950’s about the firearms industry. The author stated that the existing manufacturers had saturated the market and there was really no chance for any new manufacturers to get into it. He called that wrong

    • Kivaari

      That’s like the head of the USG Patent office in the late 1700s. He suggested closing the office down, since there wasn’t any more things to patent.

      • Tom

        Maybe they should of done so, would of been one way to avoid certain people (Rollin White, Edison, Apple et al) patenting things that already exists then using those patents to suppress the competition.

  • AR-15 Illuminati confirmed.

    • John

      When somebody released the “California-compliant” AR-15 with a single, seamless top rail, a lot of people automatically dismissed it as not having the ability to field strip it easily. I took a second look and knew–knew–that some people would find a use for it.

      Didn’t think it would be the British. Sure didn’t think it would be New Zealand.

      But it makes sense. When accuracy is of prime importance in a firefight, you want a solid rail, right? And LMT always paints white numbers on their rails, so you can actually measure where you put attachments on. Of all the AR variants there, of course they would win. They’re the ones who are the most modern and mil-spec friendly, not Colt.

      A shame Thales didn’t enter their F90 for consideration, though.

      • dave741966

        They did put the F88/F90 forward it didnt make the first pass during the evaluation

      • …Wait, why wouldn’t you be able to field-strip an LMT easily?

  • n0truscotsman

    This is actually what was said for those who cannot or will not follow the link

    “Here are some “facts” about OUR experience with M4’s on the range.

    – Some of our M4’s have well over 200,000 rounds down range. Barrels
    have been replaced, gas tubes have been replaced, BCG’s have been
    replaced but what sets it apart from the AK47’s is that upper and lower
    receivers continue to function. AK’s get to about the 100,000+ round
    count and rails on the receiver will start to crack. It’s an easy fix
    with tig welding but they crack. We have yet to lose an upper or lower
    receiver from cracking.

    – We get about 20,000 rounds out of bolts before we start
    experiencing issues. The headspace gauge will start getting closing on
    NO-GO but not close on field. We will lose a lug on the bolt. The bolt
    will start skipping over rounds in the magazine and fail to insert a
    round. We use LMT and Daniel Defense bolts and some will actually go
    longer but at about 20,000 rounds is when we will start to see issues

    – Gas tubes will erode away at the FSB after 12+ months

    – Charging handles will “stretch” allowing the locking lever and spring to fly out

    – Hammer pins and disconnectors on the 8.5″ full-auto’s will break after approximately 4,000-5,000 rounds regardless of the buffer weight

    – We have yet to lose a single flash hider as compared to muzzle
    brakes on an AK-47. The muzzle brakes will literally split in half,
    looking a like bird with his beak open and go flying down range.

    – We no longer use ANY piston conversions or factory pistons guns
    with the exception of the HK-416 “knock-off” TDI upper. I purchased a
    FACTORY brand-new MR556 and it started keyholing after only 10,000
    rounds. I was SO pissed because I spent all that money on the gun and it
    couldn’t last 10,000 rounds. I had barrels from before we even opened
    the range with 1,000’s of rounds on them from J&T Distributing
    (chrome-lined) that didn’t keyhole well into the 80,000-100,000 range. I
    don’t know who makes or made the J&T barrels but I was so pissed
    that actually wasted the money on a MR556 and that’s all I got from it. I
    purchased two of the 14.5″ TDI knock-offs approximately 6-8 weeks ago
    and they have been on the line daily with ZERO issues. I only purchased
    them because people will come in specifically request the “416” and even
    they’ve never handled a weapon their entire lives, they KNOW that the
    top half isn’t the “416 like in COD/MW”.

    – USGI mags have outlasted all of the other brands. We use UGSI
    (Brownell’s with tan follower) and on a mag for mag basis, they have
    outlasted Pmags and a few of the other mags that we get from mfg’ers
    with new weapons. We don’t have to worry about various generations with
    different weapons like the MR556, SCAR, F2000, Tavor or a couple of
    others that use AR15/M4 magazines.

    – Cleaning bolts and carriers is such a pain in the ass as compared
    to our AK’s, G36’s, SCAR’s, ACR’s and most other platforms. We throw
    them in the ultrasonic cleaner filled with Simple Green (EPA, OSHA and
    disposal concerns for us) and they never full remove the carbon from the
    bolts. The armorers spend so much time cleaning them and keeping all
    the parts together as compared to most other platforms.

    – The only piston system to last on the range so far is the HK416
    and TD415 system. Ever other systems we have tried has failed in one way
    or another. I won’t say who’s broke or how they broke so PLEASE don’t
    ask. Each mfg has their own system for cleaning intervals and we may not
    follow their way. We have a way of cleaning and keeping records that
    suits our needs because of so much use.

    – There is company that has an AR system that has some “parts don’t
    need lubrication” and that failed before the end of the first day. I
    don’t think some mfg’s understand that people REALLY use their weapons
    and when you’re rocking full-auto all day they NEED lubrication. My
    armorers and RSO’s were laughing when it seized it up because we knew
    there was NO way it would last on our range.

    – The parts that we see break more often are the bolt cam, bolt lugs
    shearing off, firing pins and gas keys shearing off the bolt carrier.

    These are just a few of the things that I can think of on the top of
    my head. Please feel free to ask questions and I will try to respond
    sooner than later depending on my schedule.”

    So, in a nutshell,

    M4s and stoner rifles are exceptionally reliable and durable. More so that “common wisdom” dictates. Certainly more so that the poster above implied and I would say it closes the case for the myth of “M4/AR unreliability”.

    Their parts wear at the predictable round counts where US Army guidelines recommend changing out parts for replacement.

    Gas piston retrofits are not necessarily better (and are worse in many ways)

    Special finishes/treatments? meh…

    And FN barrels are awesome (rock on Palmetto state)

    • Kivaari

      Excellent comments. I have never been around M16A1s, M4s or AR15s that had such usage, even in the Army. I’ve used the DI variants for 40 years. The issues I found were using commercial reloads that didn’t fit the chambers and failure to clean. The AR rifles are great.

      • n0truscotsman

        What made me laugh about that thread was the part about TDI 416 knockoffs. I’ve seen some before, both in person and on the internet, and avoided them like a f-for-m craigslist ad from Columbus, GA. I’ve seen a lot of arfcom gang warfare in regards to the company as well.

        BUT, i might need to reconsider just for curiosity’s sake. 🙂

        Of course there is a lot more science to be desired, certainly. But, i find it satisfying enough to vindicate the AR-style rifle once and for all. Another article to save to my “AR myths” folder.

        Hopefully more bought those closeout Walmart Colts.

        • Kivaari

          My impression locally, is they boxed them up and shipped them to HQ. They will get wholesaled out.

  • Kivaari

    That is one of the smartest moves I have seen in years. Having the 16 inch barrel makes sense.

  • Bullet Fast

    I think it’s probably fair to say that LMT won the tender, not the trial. In reality, all modern assault rifles are equal in most respects, only the conditions of the offered contracts create differences between the products.

    Interestingly only a couple of actual OEM’s tendered for the contract. The rest were importers. I wonder if the cost of tendering exceeded the value of the win?

    • tipsey

      Thats not really true at all.

      After talking in depth with people who conducted the trial the LMT was by far the clear favourite and the one recommended for various reasons.

      Yes, most were of a AR design however there was some huge differences (like one supplied with a 10lb trigger and a refusal from the OEM to change it.) The best one won on the day.

      • Yallan

        No doubt the Beretta ARX.

        • tipsey


  • DZ

    Parts kits anyone?

  • dave741966

    In the Request for tender or trial stage.

  • Lmtftw

    Can anyone tell me what accessories this AR will be using .
    eg. sights and laser lights

  • KP

    “”AR-15 Illuminati confirmed.””

    The American pressure on small countries is irresistable.

    • Pablo

      NZ Army has recently bought:

      Benelli shotguns (Italy)
      H&K GMGs (Germany)
      FN light machine guns (Belgium)
      MAN trucks (Germany, assembled in Austria)

      AFAIK, this is the NZ Army’s first US purchase in a long while. How much Congressional/diplomatic clout do you think a manufacturer in the backwoods of Illinois really has?.