Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: York.GA@******.gc.ca (York.GA@******.gc.ca)
Subject: Autofire Rules Question (OT)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:47:04 -0400
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Arclight [mailto:arclight@*********.de]
>Sent: Thursday, 24, April, 2003 14:17 PM
>To: Shadowrun Discussion
>Subject: Re: Autofire Rules Question
>At 14:12 24.04.2003 -0400, Martin Little wrote:
><snip>
>>Except for weapons with extremely high cyclic rates (I'm thinking of
>>that H&K advanced rifle prototype that fired 3 rounds and
>>supposedly delayed the recoil till the 3rd round had left the rifle)
>
>Named HK G11 ;)

I thought they scrapped the G11 project. I heard they had a multitude of
problems with the prototypes and it never quite made it to production.
AFAIK it wasn't picked up for use by any military in the world. I could be
wrong though. Anybody out there using it? In Canada we use a modified M16
which we call a C7. The US uses various versions of the M16. What is the
standard for other militaries?

Coyote
Message no. 2
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: Autofire Rules Question (OT)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:53:43 +0200
At 14:47 24.04.2003 -0400, York.GA@******.gc.ca wrote:

<snip>

>I thought they scrapped the G11 project. I heard they had a multitude of
>problems with the prototypes and it never quite made it to production.
>AFAIK it wasn't picked up for use by any military in the world. I could be
>wrong though. Anybody out there using it?

Yes, they did. HK had several prototypes produced but the project was
scrapped because of political reasons. And it's probably never going to be
produced, because the rights to all patents belongs to the german
government. They, after all, funded the developement.

> In Canada we use a modified M16
>which we call a C7. The US uses various versions of the M16. What is the
>standard for other militaries?

SA80 for the UK, G36 for germany and spain, C7 for denmark and the
netherlands. belgium uses the FNC AFAIK.

Arclight
Message no. 3
From: grimjack@******.com (Martin Little)
Subject: Autofire Rules Question (OT)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Arclight wrote:

> At 14:47 24.04.2003 -0400, York.GA@******.gc.ca wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I thought they scrapped the G11 project. I heard they had a multitude of
> >problems with the prototypes and it never quite made it to production.
> >AFAIK it wasn't picked up for use by any military in the world. I could be
> >wrong though. Anybody out there using it?
>
> Yes, they did. HK had several prototypes produced but the project was
> scrapped because of political reasons. And it's probably never going to be
> produced, because the rights to all patents belongs to the german
> government. They, after all, funded the developement.
>

Political reasons...and due to the fact that they couldn't prove that it
made the soldier more likely to hit his target than with a much
simpler/cheaper M16/Clone which was the requirement for the US Military to
change it's weapon.
Message no. 4
From: arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject: Autofire Rules Question (OT)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:29:04 +0200
At 15:22 24.04.2003 -0400, Martin Little wrote:

<snip>

>Political reasons...and due to the fact that they couldn't prove that it
>made the soldier more likely to hit his target than with a much
>simpler/cheaper M16/Clone which was the requirement for the US Military to
>change it's weapon.

The US to the best of my knowledge never planned to procure the G11.

Arclight
Message no. 5
From: ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Autofire Rules Question (OT)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:19:38 +0100
In article <5.2.0.9.0.20030424212530.009f9900@****.artfiles.de>,
Arclight <arclight@*********.de> writes
>At 15:22 24.04.2003 -0400, Martin Little wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Political reasons...and due to the fact that they couldn't prove that it
>>made the soldier more likely to hit his target than with a much
>>simpler/cheaper M16/Clone which was the requirement for the US Military to
>>change it's weapon.
>
>The US to the best of my knowledge never planned to procure the G11.

Evaluated it as one of the Advanced Combat Rifle candidates during the
later 1980s (along with a 'duplex bullet' M-16 derivative from Colt,
flechette-firing weapons from AAI and Steyr, with the M16A2 as
baseline... surprise, surprise, the biggest improvement in marksmanship
came from _practice_).

The US Army wanted a technological solution to double hit probability,
and discovered that the M16 was actually very good as long as troops
were allowed to send rounds downrange with it. End of ACR program (just
as SPIW had fallen over, and Project Salvo before that... you'd think
_someone_ would be learning, but now we have OICW trying to do just the
same)




--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 6
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Autofire Rules Question (OT)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:10:46 +0200
According to Paul J. Adam, on Friday 25 April 2003 00:19 the word on the
street was...

> The US Army wanted a technological solution to double hit probability,
> and discovered that the M16 was actually very good as long as troops
> were allowed to send rounds downrange with it. End of ACR program (just
> as SPIW had fallen over, and Project Salvo before that... you'd think
> _someone_ would be learning, but now we have OICW trying to do just the
> same)

That's always the US solution, isn't it? Using technology when common sense
would be more useful.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
We'll all take turns. I'll get mine, too.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Autofire Rules Question (OT), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!