Toxotis Self-Propelled Howitzer

Posted by

Okay, so we have our new MBT, and our new Heavy IFV. Now we’ll outline our self-propelled howitzer. Again, we’re going to make logistics and crew safety a priority. We’re going to push the envelope a bit, but not too much. This will of course be a 155mm howitzer. Can we add another standard item, our stock heavy vehicle engine?

We might think no, at first. 1,500 horsepower is an awful lot of horsepower. But we’re getting pretty heavy. The Panzerhaubitze 2000 and 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV are both about 55 tonnes. That’s pretty close to the weight of our tank, and we can always govern the engine down a bit. So it will be a heavy vehicle, to no one’s great surprise. It will be able to keep up with an armored thrust, of course. The powerpack is rear-mounted.

Heavy is good though. It lets us haul plenty of ammo, which lets us sustain proper fire missions. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from watching The Great War’s wonderful week-by-week of World War One on youtube, it’s that there’s no such thing as enough artillery shells. Artillery does the killing. Artillery is the key to success.

But, a good load of artillery shells (which are, of course, explosive) and the charges needed to launch them (more explosives, duh) is going to be dangerous in the event of an armor penetration. To maximize survivability, we will take a page out of our MBT design and completely separate the crew from the ammunition.

This means a reduction in crew, because we can’t have human loaders. We’ll need to handle loading shells and charges automatically. This is a little harder than it was in the Myrmidon, since tanks use convenient one-piece ammo. So the projectile and cartridge and primer are all in one relatively easy to handle piece. Great. But artillery is different. Artillery has a much larger range spectrum than an MBT gun, because it’s an indirect fire weapon. To make accommodating this easier, charges come separate from the projectiles, and in different sizes. Recently, rather than dealing with a whole bunch of different size charges, some have developed modular charge sets, to let you build a full charge from smaller, easier to handle bits. To no one’s great surprise, we’ll go with this. Specifically, the Bofors Uniflex-2 Modular charge system, since it’s already developed. As a bonus, Uniflex-2 charges are insensitive munitions, so they’re harder to accidentally detonate. Which is great for reducing how bad an accident gets. Electrical fires suck. Electrical fires setting off your stowed ammo load sucks more.

To maximize the potential of the Uniflex 2, we’ll have a chamber volume of 25 L on our 155mm/L52 howitzer. This is a bit bigger than the NATO standard of 23 L, but that’s not really a big issue for us. We can still use NATO standard projectiles, which is the more important bit, since that saves us some R&D money if we can just buy/license existing things like the wonderful GPS-guided Excalibur round. More on exotic and cool 155mm rounds later in this piece. Also, since I know you’re curious, it requires 6.5 Uniflex-2 charges to fill the chamber completely. There are both “full” and “half” size charges, and you need six full-size charges and one half-size charge to fill the 25 L chamber to capacity.

Speaking of capacity, you’re probably wondering how many rounds are carried. The Toxotis carries 60 rounds and associated charges (390 equivalent charge loads total) in two 30 round/195 charge magazines. The magazine subdivision, with corresponding roof blow-off panels, is designed to try to reduce the chance of one hit igniting everything. Ammunition handling, charge loading, fuze setting, and primer handling are all fully automated.

Automatic loading and a modern, computerized fire control system allows for nine-round MRSI1 capability. Toxotis can come to a halt and fire the first shot within thirty seconds of receiving a fire mission. It can get moving again in under thirty seconds.

Electronically, the Toxotis has a fully-computerized fire control system, and our standard friendly unit tracking system. It also has a highly precise navigation suite, which can compute position based on inertial references, from satellite data, or pull in positional information over the tracking system. Fire missions may be computed internally or sent via secure datalink. The radios are designed to facilitate communication with nearby infantry, armor, and aircraft to coordinate support and fire mission requests. So while it can use a fire direction system, this is not required for a fire mission. Like on the Myrmidon, the three-man crew of the Toxotis are all in the front of the hull in an armored capsule. There is, of course, less armor than on the Myrmidon. NBC protection is, of course, standard. There’s also provision for direct fire missions, with a thermal viewer and laser rangefinder mounted on the roof.

To resupply, troops can manually load projectiles and charges into loading hatches at the rear on each side of the turret. These automatically stow the munitions appropriately. For more rapid resupply, the companion reloader vehicle, the Hypaspist, can be used. This is built on a nearly identical chassis to the Toxotis, but it lacks the gun, the rotating turret, and only has a crew of two. In place of the gun is an enclosed resupply conveyor to reload the Toxotis through a hatch on the back of its turret. From here, both magazines can be reloaded. The Hypaspist carries a double-load, or 120 rounds plus associated charges and primers. All ammunition handling within the Hypaspist is fully automated.

Both the Toxotis and the Hypaspist come equipped with a Trophy active protection systems, an array of smoke-grenade dischargers, and a 12.7mm M2A1 heavy machine gun in a remote weapons station on the roof. They are designed for the highest paced shoot-and-scoot missions in mobile warfare. Each weighs approximately 60 tonnes, and the production cost for the pair is $6 million.

Let’s also talk about some off-the-shelf artillery rounds. A standard HE round weighs 43.5 kg, and carries 11.3 kg of HE filler. There’s the M549A1 rocket-assisted HE shell, which has 6.8 kg of HE filler and a rocket motor for extra range. The M110A2 White Phosphorus round, which can be used for incendiary effects or producing smoke, weighs 44 kg, of which 7.1 kg is white phosphorus filler. We have projectiles that can be used to scatter small mines. The antipersonnel variant weighs 46.7 kg, and holds 36 antipersonnel mines. Each mine weighs 0.54 kg, and contains 21.9 g of high explosive. The anti-vehicle variant also weighs 46.7 kg, and holds 9 anti-vehicle mines. Each of these mines weighs 1.8 kg and contains 0.6 kg of high explosive. There’s also a couple submunition variants available. The standard version holds 88 dual-purpose (antipersonnel/antimateriel) submunitions. The extended range version has a base-bleed shell, and holds 72 dual-purpose submunitions. The submunitions are similar to the US DPICM submunitions.

In terms of smart rounds, several more are available on the market at present. There’s the long (1.4 m), heavy (62.4 kg) M712 Copperhead, which uses laser guidance. This provides useful capabilities against quickly identified point targets, including armor. Also available for the anti-armor mission are the very similar Bofors BONUS round and the Rheinmetall SMArt 155 round. Both have a pair of smart submunitions that fall slowly in a spiral pattern. Multispectral infrared sensors and a millimeter wave radar are used to detect armor targets. If one is detected, the submunition fires an explosively-formed penetrator at the target. Finally, there’s the aforementioned M982 Excalibur, which is GPS guided. For fixed targets, this is easier to use than a laser-guided round like the copperhead, since it doesn’t require a designator, but it is not useful against moving targets.

1.) Multiple rounds, simultaneous impact. So the Toxotis can fire up to nine rounds at a target and have them all hit at the same time, totally ruining someone’s day.

Resurrected Weapons: YAGM-169

Posted by

You may have noticed some logistical inefficiencies in current missile procurement. I’ll use Western examples, but there are similar Russian ones. We have several missiles that are about the same size and have about the same role: engagement of a visually (possibly with the help of infrared) acquired target. These missiles include the BGM-71 TOW, which might be launched from helicopters or ground vehicles; the AGM-114 Hellfire, which might be launched from helicopters or UAVs; and the AGM-65 Maverick, which might be launched from fixed wing aircraft or fixed wing aircraft. The Maverick’s warhead is quite a bit bigger, which contributes to its larger size. Otherwise, they’re all used for about the same sort of fire mission. Could we replace all three with a single missile?

Enter the YAGM-169. Quit snickering in the back. This missile weighs 49 kg and is 177.5 cm long. This matches the weight, but is a bit longer than the Hellfire missile, which is 163 cm long. This is, however, smaller and lighter than the Maverick. The big difference between the Hellfire and the Maverick, aside from platform-induced range variations, is the larger warhead. Here is where some compromises come in. The standard target for the Maverick and the Hellfire is an armored vehicle. The toughest armored vehicle is the MBT. If a Hellfire can kill any tank you please, why have the heavier warhead? The Hellfire can get this done with a large and powerful tandem shaped-charge warhead, delivered from above. Adding a fragmentation jacket provides some measure of multipurpose capability. We have our warhead, and hence, our Hellfire-like size.

What about heavier targets? Since the development of the Maverick, we’ve developed a number of precision-guidance kits for conventional bombs. Combine with a glide bomb kit and some altitude, gives us equivalent range. Alternatively, for well-defended targets, we can get significantly better standoff range from a longer range cruise missile like the AGM-158. Plus, we can carry more of the lighter YAGM-169s.

Okay. So we’ve perhaps accepted the smaller warhead size. What about range? Well, we have more advanced rocket motors, plus it’s hard to compare the range of the Hellfire and the Maverick, since the aircraft that launch the Maverick do so from a higher altitude and higher airspeed than that of the helicopter launching the Hellfire. Still, we can improve the range with a variable-thrust solid-fuel rocket motor.

What about guidance? Well, the TOW uses an old school SACLOS wire guidance system. Which is outmoded, and will be difficult to integrate onto a fast-moving aircraft. So forget it. Beyond that, the Hellfire has a couple different guidance options: a semi-active laser homing seeker and an active millimeter-wave radar seeker. The Maverick is currently available with a semi-active laser homing seeker, an imaging infrared seeker, or an optical CCD seeker. You might expect different versions of YAGM-169 with different seekers, but you’d be wrong.

YAGM-169 was designed with a triple-mode seeker that combined imaging infrared. semi-active laser homing, and active millimeter-wave radar homing in one unit. This is the one part of the missile that I’m concerned about, at least as far as cost. Still, it’s easy enough to build versions with separate seekers if cost becomes an issue.

That said, the YAGM-169 was (shockingly) on time and on budget. But the US cancelled it during Operation Iraqi Freedom because of budget pressures.

So what do we think? YAGM-169 was on budget, and tested from both fixed- and rotary-wing platforms. Awesome. Large production runs should help keep costs down. I’m wondering if it can also replace the TOW as a missile on e.g. Bradley, but we could press Spike LR or Javelin into this role, and those would be much easier for troops to reload in the field, being lighter.

Veridct: Approved for immediate production by the Borgundy Ordnance Procurement Board

The Humble 60mm Mortar

Posted by

A while ago I talked about how the XM-25 was a stupid, useless waste of money. More recently, I expressed my disdain for it’s stillborn parent project, the XM-29. But that is not to say I don’t think that all infantry needs are rifles and machine guns. No, enemies in defilade or behind cover are a classic problem, and I like the classic, time-tested, cheap solution that is the mortar. Today, we’re going to be talking about the smallest of the common modern mortars, the 60mm.

The US Military has been using 60mm mortars since the Second World War, and really liked the concept. So we Americans have stuck with them, and they’re excellent light weapons for the platoon or company. Depending on charge and model, they’re good for a maximum range of four kilometers. Unlike the XM-25, mortars and mortar shells are both cheap. They also actually work. Let’s look at some examples.

The current American standard mortar is the M224A1. Fully assembled, it weighs just under 38 lbs, but it can be broken down into its components (namely baseplate, bipod, sighting unit, and mortar tube) to be carried by the mortar team. Nominally, the M224A1 is operated by a crew of three men. The M224A1 can also be operated ‘commando style’ by a single man. Here, a smaller baseplate is used, and the bipod is omitted. The soldier supports the tube with his hands for aiming. Perfect for light infantry. The M224A1 can be gravity-fired, or may use an optional manual trigger. The M224A1 has a one meter long barrel.

The M6 mortar family from Hirtenberger is the British standard mortar, when they’re not being criminally stupid and removing them from equipment tables. The M6 comes in three different barrel lengths: 640 mm, 895 mm, and one meter. Bipods and baseplates are standard across all models. Again, smaller baseplates are available for ‘commando style’ operation.

Since 60 mm mortars are pretty common, shells are available from a wide variety of manufacturers. The same sorts of warheads are available in all of the catalogs though: HE, combined effect antipersonnell/antimateriel, white phosphorous smoke, red phosphorous smoke, illumination, and IR illumination. Nothing too sophisticated here. Inert training rounds are available as well, and mortars are cheap enough that you can afford to practice with them.

Mortars are a proven solution to the problem of cover on the battlefield. They work. They’re cheap. Get some for your army today!

Parvusimperator Experiments with the RMR and Water, Part 1

Posted by

You didn’t think I had forgotten about it, did you?

I got to thinking about the RMR (maybe it’ll come with me to class soon). Specifically, it really does seem to improve my shooting. Now, I frequent certain forums, and I recall a long discussion from 2014 about issues with the RMR becoming unusable in the rain. Basically, everything got soaked and you’d get a starburst effect all over the optic. This denied you the aiming point of the red dot and made use of irons very difficult. Or so it was claimed. There were pictures. Of course, not everybody had the same experience. Some had no problems in the rain.

And of course, there are other issues. How heavy is ‘heavy rain’? Does RainX help? Did Trijicon make tweaks? How are the eyes of the person doing the shooting? Cameras often don’t show sight pictures well.

Time for some experiential learning of my own. I’ve become a fan of trying things myself and forming an opinion for me. Even if it is more expensive. We have some accounts of rain making the things not work, and some of rain not being an issue. Plus, it’s been about two years, so Trijicon may have quietly rolled improvements into the optic to correct any problems there might be. Let’s find out for ourselves!

Alas, I don’t see much rain in my near future. And I’d then have to go out in the rain, and hope it was good, pouring rain to get a good test. So I thought for a minute, and came up with the next best thing: the shower.

No, I didn’t start shooting in the shower. Don’t be an idiot. But that gave me a heavy stream of water for me to test sight picture. So I started up the shower (yay hot water), cleared my Glockblaster (a few times), and proceeded to soak it.

I tried all kinds of angles relative to the stream of water. I cycled the slide. I got everything good and wet. And through it all, I still had a usable dot to aim with. I also had no problem using my backup irons through the soaked RMR window.

Awesome! To be honest, I didn’t think it would be a big problem for the concealed carry use case, since the pistol spends its time under a jacket. But this does give me confidence for the next rainy match, where I can do some more testing.

So there we go. Preliminary testing shows that getting your RMR soaked will not impede its usefulness as a sighting unit. I’m not sure about other people, or about small changes or about where you live. I wasn’t there to see their problems or check the finer points of design at the factory. And I’m not you. But I can get behind this fancy technology.

Lessons from Wargame: Airland Battle

Posted by

Fishbreath and I are big fans of Wargame: Airland battle (which I will abbreviate as WALB, for I am a lazy typist). Now, I won’t pretend that it’s a perfect simulation, but it’s a solid one which should be relatively consistent in it’s assumptions/errors. So I thought it would be a good place to test some ideas, at least until I finally buy Steel Beasts (which also doesn’t do airpower). I have rather less time in Red Dragon, but I’ll add notes where appropriate.

I tend to roll with tank-heavy decks, with a good amount of airpower. So I’m usually rolling with America for NATO (because USAF) or USSR for Pact (because duh). Some observations and conclusions, in no particular order:

Observation:
If we’re talking tanks alone, the T-80U is tops, followed by the Leopard 2A4 and then the M1A1. The T-80U has a marginally better gun, and gun-launched ATGMs, which gives it a bunch more range. Flank armor is weak, so hit it there. The Leopard 2A4 and M1A1 are pretty similar, and both are noticeably less good than the T-80U. Though numbers even things up.

Conclusion:
Gun launched ATGMs are cool, because they give you more range. Puts the priority on seeing the other guy first of course. Though, that’s really important all the time, as we’ll see. Note that tank optics are a little nerfed in the game, to make you use recon units. Which is fine, but does deprive the Abrams of things that the US Army got right before everyone else, namely high end thermals. Otherwise, this one’s all about the gun. As for the numbers game, Uncle Joe said it best.

Observation:
Of course, this isn’t a straight-up tank sim (like Steel Beasts). So when playing NATO, I’ll go with America. The M1A1 is almost as good as the Leopard 2A4, with the biggest deficiency being that you have to gas it up more frequently. This happens to me a lot. But playing America gets you a much, much better air force, better attack helicopters, and Bradleys.

Conclusion:
It’s all about the combined arms, shock. No big surprise here. Games like this tend to strongly encourage playing as the bigger powers who give you more options. This was one of the few things improved in Wargame: Red Dragon–they allowed you to group lesser powers to get a well-rounded unit set.

Observation:
I love Bradleys. One of my favorite combos is the M3(A1) recon vehicles with some M1(A1) Abramses. This gives me a long range sight with the good recon optics, plus a long range missile punch from the Bradley TOW-2 missiles. It does take a little micro to keep the Bradleys alive. I probably don’t have to remind you to put the big tanks with the heavy armor out in front.

Conclusion:
ATGMs are useful on IFVs, who knew? It’s more that this armament set of smallish autocannon with lots of ammo + ATGMs on IFVs is useful for just about any target I encounter. I try to bypass towns, personally. Other loadout decisions might also work for your intended use case. I will say that the Bradleys are also quite formidable on the defensive, again, as long as you can keep them from being hit too much. The 25 mm gun with large ammo reserves and good fire control is pretty good against aircraft. Not much to be done about IFV survivability except go heavier. That seems familiar…

Observation:
In that same vein, I’m big on American-style aggressive reconnaissance. Recon vehicles alone seem to have a nasty habit of dying. As part of an armored spearhead, they live longer.

Conclusion:
There are two schools of thought on recon: recon by stealth and recon by force. I like the latter. It fits with my tactical conceptions. I don’t think there’s a wrong way to do recon, but understand your role and the vehicles. Bradley’s ain’t stealthy. Something like the SPz 11-2 Kurz doesn’t bring a ton of firepower to a fight. And the American school fits me better, so I like it more. Glad to see it can actually work too.

Observation:
The Soviets have some great SHORAD in Tunguska. That thing is amazing. Interestingly, my favorite from the NATO perspective it the cheap and cheerful M1097 Avenger, which was a surprise to me. It is not as obviously amazing, and I probably wouldn’t have picked it if I didn’t desperately need to make do while I wait for Eagles to swat things out of the air.

Conclusion:
You knew the Tunguska was great. Guns, missiles, mobile like a tank. Love it. It is sometimes advisable to order it to shut down its autocannons so that it doesn’t announce its presence to enemy armor. The success of the M1097 was a surprise to me. It’s a HMMWV with a big rack of stingers on the back in a turret. But Stingers are excellent MANPADS, and it’s a great thing to hide and use to ambush marauding aircraft and helicopters. And then move to a new hiding spot before the inevitable counterstrike. It’s the kind of SHORAD you could really load up on. Maybe load some WVRAAMs to for a bit more range.

Observation:
My Soviet decks, and especially my American decks tend to lack a lot of infantry. Especially the well armed ‘shock infantry’ that a lot of the other European powers have. A bunch of this is because I prefer armored thrusts and ripostes to slugging it out. This basically means I’m gonna have a hard time dealing with built-up areas. That’s the price I pay for my builds. Also, Fishbreath likes the infantry-defensive type fight (maybe he’s got a British character to his tactics?), and so I usually leave that to him. Instead, I’ll take the deep Thunder Run any day of the week.

Conclusion:
Specialization is good. Urban combat sucks. Bring infantry if you’re stuck there. Or avoid it entirely. You can get a lot of success with deep thrusts. Especially if you’ve used some probing moves and skirmisher-type engagements to figure out where the enemy isn’t. Protip: that’s where you should be striking.

Observation:
I’ve got some good rounds with a German armored deck that comes with their excellent Panzergrenadier shock infantry. If you’re gonna storm a town, go heavy. In Red Dragon, Panzergrenadiers ’90 are awesome.

Conclusion:
If I’m gonna go infantry, I’m going with infantry that bring stuff. All the stuff. The bigger rocket launchers the better. Oh, and that buzzsaw that is the MG3. Cue the Panzerlied. Maybe I should build a Castle Iter Rules deck. It’s also in Red Dragon that you can get Marder 2s, a formidable IFV with staying power. You still don’t quite have the Death From Above air support that is the USAF though.

Observation:
Okay, let’s get to it. The USAF is the best AF, hands down. Want air superiority? They’ll get it. Want something to die? You got it.

Conclusion:
Airpower rocks, news at 11. Von Rundstedt’s ghost is yelling “Duh!” over my shoulder as I type this, I’m sure. If you can see it, you can bomb it. And if you can bomb it, it’s gonna die. The USAF even has plenty of SEAD to take out those pesky Soviet SAMs. Or you can use the F-117A. I’m pretty sure it was never intended to be used like some kind of stealth stuka, but I don’t care. It’s my go to if I want to get rid of some pesky command vehicle. Also, can I say napalm and cluster weapons rock? Because they totally do. I love you, Dow Chemical.

Observation:
The Soviets have the best overall air defenses around with the aforementioned Tunguska and the excellent medium-range Buk. They really need it given the mighty USAF, plus several other NATO members that have decent air forces that are good at bringing pain. Beware Tornadoes.

Conclusion:
Nothing new here. The Russians invested heavily in SAMs, and it shows. Also, cluster bombs are super effective. Shocker. Defense in depth is helpful. Tornadoes and similar are especially problematic because they come in low and fast, giving minimal time to react. The big vulnerabilities are against fighters, and against widely-deployed AAA, but I’ve usually spent my points on other things by then.

Observation:
The F-14 Tomcat/Phoenix combo is stupid awesome. It’s my go-to American fighter, despite the availability of the F-15C.

Conclusion:
This is an interesting function of some in-game limitations. Given the smallish size of the battlefield and lack of early warning from ground based radar or AWACS (and thus no early interception opportunities), my options are to have fighters loiter over the battlefield on patrol, or scramble to intercept. I’ve found loitering to lead to a bunch of annoying ambushes from enemy fighters or medium range SAMs, and it almost always means I don’t have air cover when I need it because of fuel concerns. If I’m intercepting, then the long range of the Phoenix missile makes up for all other shortcomings of it and the Tomcat. The Tomcat was built as an interceptor and it’s quite good at this. Being able to launch first even gives it a good shot against Flankers. So even though the F-15 is the better air superiority fighter, the F-14 is better in Wargame. Although its much less famous, similar conclusions apply to the MiG-31 Foxhound for the USSR (which is much more of a pure interceptor design than the Tomcat).

Parvusimperator Reviews Trijicon HD Sights

Posted by

I decided I should replace the stock sights on my PPQ. The PPQ is a really great gun out of the box, but it comes with crappy plastic three dot sights. I don’t like the three dot sight picture, so let’s see what’s on the market.

I could have gone with a black rear and fiber optic front from Dawson, like I did on my VP9, but I wanted something different. Plus, Dawson’s manufacturing tolerances annoy me. The VP9 is made by just one company, HK. With just one set of specs and tolerances. This ain’t no 1911, where dovetail dimensions differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. I understand that adjustment is going to be needed on a 1911. But this is the age of computer aided design and CNC machines. I should not have to spend a large amount of time with files fitting sights to my modern pistol. To hell with that.

Instead, I went with the Trijicon HD Sights. These are an attempt to get sights that work in both high and low light conditions. They have a plain black rear with two tritium lamps, but no white rings around the tritium, so as not to provide distractions. The rear sight also has a wide, U-shaped notch. The front sight has a tritium lamp surrounded by a high-visibility thick plastic ring, in orange or yellow. That ring is made of traditional glow in the dark stuff that gets “charged” with light. As a result of the ring, this is a wide post for the front sight. That’s really been my only hesitation with these. I like narrower fiber optic posts. But, given that the rear sight is commensurately wider, I still get nice broad light bars on either side.

The tritium makes the Trijicon HDs expensive. But Trijicon is at least nice enough to make them for just about everything. In addition to the common guns, namely Glocks and M&Ps, Trijicon makes HDs for SiGs, the PPQ and other Walthers, the VP9 and other HKs, and even Fishbreath’s PX4. Dawson doesn’t even make sights for the PX4.

A quick aside. Mounting sights on the PPQ was super easy. The factory front sight is held on by a small screw that holds two plastic wings apart. To remove, just take out the screw and squeeze the wings with some needle-nose pliers. Done. The replacement front sight is affixed with a screw, like a Glock. I know this is supposed to be less sturdy than a dovetail, but it’s a hell of a lot easier to install.

The rear sight is kind of interesting. There’s a reverse-threaded screw with a square head on the right side of the sight. There’s a spring-loaded detent in the frame that has a slot cut in it to lock in with the screw, and it presses the sight into the square-cut slot. I’m not aware of anyone else who’s done this, and I have no idea how sturdy it is. But since I don’t use my rear sights as a hammer, I’m not too worried. Again, it was super easy to swap out the sights.

Then, I took it to the range to compare it with the aforementioned Dawson sights on the VP9. Both the VP9 and the PPQ have excellent ergonomics and triggers, so I figured this was as good a test as any.

The result was pretty much as I expected. For quick stuff in close-ish, the Trijicon HDs were competitive with the fiber optic for speedy sight acquisition. At range, it was a little harder to focus on the top edge of the sight on the HDs, since the bright dot is quite a bit bigger. Also, the wide front post covers more of a smaller target at range.

I’m a firm believer that for whatever sights you have on your gun, there exists some lighting condition and shooting problem to screw you over. In this case, you get pretty quick acquisition and good low-light capabilities, but make the long distance problems more difficult. It’s a pretty reasonable trade. I really like these as general purpose pistol sights.

Of course, if you aren’t sold on needing/wanting tritium, you can get nice, high visibility sights for a lot less money. This comes down to what are you comfortable with. Which optical conditions do you want to screw you over? Or, you could put a U-Boat1 on your carry gun, and always be ready to illuminate the living daylights out of an obscure target. But then there’s extra weight and bulk to play with.

Unfortunately, the best way to know if sights are right for you is to try them. Happily, some of the nicer gun stores have a set in a countertop display, which is pretty neat. If you want tritium, I don’t know of another commercially available solution to also get high visibility built in, short of having someone custom build them. They’re way better than any other tritium sight I’ve tried.

1.) Surefire X300U

Retro Review: Parvusimperator Looks at the M16A2

Posted by

Let’s have some fun with an old review. I’m a huge fan of the M16, as you well know. There was a pretty comprehensive set of changes put in from the M16A1 of my father’s Vietnam-era generation to my generation’s M16A2 (and M16A4, though that’s mostly an M16A2 with a picatinny-rail equipped flattop upper). Let’s look at them one by one, and I’ll tell you what I think. We’re starting from the muzzle end, of course.

Muzzle Device Changes
This is the later “birdcage” flash suppressor with the bottom ports not cut. Meh. I could take these or leave these. I suppose it’s a little better, because it’ll blow less dirt back in the face of the shooter when prone, but that’s hardly a big deal on the M16A1. I guess I’m okay with this, but I’m going to be looking at the price very closely. This isn’t worth a lot to me.

Front sight Changes
This one is really subtle. There were five detents for the M16A1 front sight as you adjust it for elevation. There are four on the M16A2. Because…better? Something about glare and flat faces, I don’t know. I don’t think this one matters.

Barrel Changes
That profile. It’s now fatter…in front of the gas block. The rest of the barrel is unchanged. There is literally no good reason for this. It’s beyond stupid. There were some dumb soldiers using their M16A1 as a prybar. Apparently this was the fix, not discipline. Is there any wonder we’re in such a sorry state now?

There were also some questions of barrel flex, especially under prolonged fire. Well, all that flex is going to happen between the chamber and the gas block. But that part of the barrel was left alone so they didn’t have to make new M203 brackets. A thicker muzzle end won’t do shit besides balance stupid. If this was an actual concern (and I strongly doubt it, but I’m not staring at the data) then they should have added notches or made new M203 brackets.1

There’s also the subtle matter of new barrel twist. The M16A2 was designed to work with the new SS109/M855 round. The NATO standard 5.56 mm. The Belgians, who developed that round, called for a 1 in 7 twist. Some experts think a 1 in 9 twist would work better. But the Belgians also wanted to make the barrel stabilize the associated tracer round, which was quite a bit longer. So they called for 1 in 7. I can’t blame anyone involved in the M16A2 design for choosing the manufacturer-specified twist rate for the new round.

New Handguards
Okay, these I like. I like these a lot. Way better than the old triangular-type ones. They’re more comfortable. They don’t have those “teeth” things at the top that break. There’s only one kind of part to stock in the inventory instead of two. And they’re better ventilated. Fun for the whole family.

Delta Ring
Colt angled the ring holding the handguards on. The new slip ring (now called the “Delta ring”) was designed to be easier to grab and pull down to remove or replace the handguards. A small change, but a good one.

Brass Deflector
I guess if you shoot rifles wrong-handed, you probably oughtn’t get brass in the face for your trouble. Pretty small change, doesn’t actually impact anything.

Range adjustable sights
Another feature I hate. Unlike the barrel profile, I understand the reasoning. It’s just wrong. These were added because the USMC has a focus on long range rifle marksmanship on known-distance ranges, and also because they wanted something that would do well in high power matches. The sight is better for this. However, the two apertures aren’t very well designed (the big one is too small for its intended use, and the small one is too big for its intended use). Further, I categorically disagree with the train of thought here. Range estimation is hard. Range estimation when you’re getting shot at is very, very hard. Studies have shown that soldiers are really, really bad at range estimation. And the whole point of SCHV rounds is that you have a large point-blank zone. So for the most part, put the sights on target, pull the trigger2, and the error should be small enough not to matter. Remember, these are iron sights, and Ivan or Charlie or Haji isn’t going to obligingly stand still at 500 yards and wait for you to shoot him. The original -A1 type sights were better.

Various Lower Receiver Reinforcements
The lower receiver got beefed up a bit in some critical areas. Apparently they were breaking. Anyway, I’m all for stronger, but soldiers can break anything. So I’d really like to see some data on this, in terms of breaking strength and what standard abuse modes will do to it.

New Pistol Grip
You were so close, Colt. So very close. The shape and size are the same as the old grip. But this one is made from a tougher plastic and it has more texture. I like textured grips, and yay tougher. What went wrong? The nub on the front. This is why finger grooves suck. If they fit your hand, they feel good. If they don’t, you’re gonna have a bad time. Because my hands aren’t like the dude that called for the nub, it doesn’t fit my hand right. I’d grind it off, except there are even better grips on the aftermarket. The best of breed are currently the TangoDown Battlegrips.

Burst trigger
I hate hate hate hate hate the burst trigger. Hate it. I hate the conceit that soldiers are too dumb to be trained to use autofire correctly. I hate the conceit that three is the only correct burst size. I hate the notion that the psychological aspect of carrying your own fully automatic rifle in your hands to respond to the enemy’s in kind isn’t worth having. I hate that it means you get three super crappy trigger pulls instead of one mediocre trigger pull. I hate that you never know how many rounds are going to come out, because it doesn’t reset. So, if you have one round in the magazine, the gun will fire the chambered round, plus the one in the mag. You reload. You pull the trigger again. Only one bullet comes out, because the system “remembers” where it left off. You want suppression? Do you need to break contact right fucking now? Automatic fire. Accept no substitutes. I’m so glad this “feature” is dying a much deserved death these days. Probably the worst feature on the gun.

New Stock
I’m split on this. On the one hand, yay tougher. On the other, it’s longer. It’s a great length for prone shooting on a known distance range, slung up with your rifle. It’s less good in combat when you’re using all kinds of positions. Especially if you’re not tall.

Overall, meh. Honestly, the best thing here are the new handguards, and you could easily put those on an M16A1. Also of note is the Diemaco/Colt Canada C7 rifle. Which is an M16A2, but with A1 sights, a safe/semi/auto trigger, and various spacers to adjust the stocks. That’s pretty good. Way better than the M16A2. Sigh.

Now, of course, just buy an M4. Duh. Or M4A1 if you want a barrel that’s in a heavier but sensibly-cut profile. Both are available with a proper safe/semi/auto trigger. The M4 has always been available this way in the catalog. It’s not Colt’s fault some stupid colonels didn’t buy the right triggers.

1.) This issue was finally fixed in the newest M4A1 builds, which use a nice, medium-profile barrel. It’s thicker under the handguards, and there are notches cut in the sides to accommodate the M203 mounting brackets. And, to the surprise of exactly no one, this barrel actually works as intended, holding up to lots of full auto better. There’s a separate question of whether or not this is needed for general issue…
2.) This is why red dot sights work so well on the AR-15 and other SCHV rifles. Modern technology has fixed this issue. Now, everybody uses an optic, whether an Aimpoint or an ACOG. Which is a separate discussion, but any optic will beat good irons, let alone stupid ones like these.

So make yourself an ARK: ragging on the platform

Posted by

Not very hard, I admit: I’ll grant you that the AR-15 is an excellent example of a weapon design which is easy to work on, easy to assemble, and easy to maintain. As far as building your own goes, the AR-15 is a lot like democracy: the worst system, except for all the other ones we’ve tried.

That being said, though, no other rifle has the same reputation as the AR-15, whose marketing says that any enterprising citizen with some tools in the basement can knock one together from your various parts kits. This is technically correct, and while I’m on the record saying that technically correct is the best kind of correct, I have to throw the flag here, for two separate reasons.

First: the AR-15 in its original design does require specialist tools, to attach a pinned gas block. Fortunately for modern end users, set screw and clamp-on gas blocks are much more popular, because they, y’know, work just as well. If you build to the original spec, you need a drill press, which brings us to…

Second: the fairer comparison is an 80% AR lower against an 80% AK blank. You’ll need a drill press for the AR lower as well as the AK blank; there’s just less of a market for AK building because it doesn’t have that Lego feel.

Beyond that, the AR has a ton of annoying fiddly bits which, while still better than, say, rivets, are still a pain. Consider the barrel nut. Rather than having a single purpose and a single torque specification, it has two purposes and a massive torque range: it holds the barrel to the receiver, and it supports the gas tube through its notched flange while being locked in place by same. This is an example of too-clever-by-half thinking. The barrel nut ought to just be a regular nut, and when designing a regular nut, it’s best to rely on torque over some external device designed to inhibit the rotation of the nut. If the gas tube needs support, design a separate part for that.

Consider also the roll pin. Sure, it does its job, but at what cost? In most cases where I may want to remove a part, I prefer set screws or mechanically-retained pins. (Remember, I have c-spring retained trigger and hammer pins on my lower receiver.) I will grant that the roll pin is fine in some places. For instance, I don’t intend to ever replace the trigger guard on my lower receiver, so roll pins are fine! Similarly, I don’t plan on unpinning the gas tube from the gas block; if I have to replace one, or if I want to change one, I’ll replace them as a unit. Same deal: roll pins cool.

Parvusimperator asked me to gripe about the dust cover, but I (intelligently) bought an upper receiver which already has the dust cover installed.

The worst part is that most of these failings need not be failings! It’s dead simple to make an AR-15-compatible receiver. Upper receivers especially already exist to meet a myriad of needs. Why not improved end-user serviceability? Lowers are a harder pill to swallow, since ‘needs special parts’ is a terrible thing to see on the side of one. Then again, ambidextrous lower receivers are a thing, and most end users are only going to bother changing furniture, triggers, and maybe buffers, none of which are big offenders in the special-tools market. The same reasoning holds here. We already have specialist AR-15 lowers for the ambidextrously-interested. Why not for the bolt-catch-replacingly-interested?

So make yourself an ARK: 7.62×39 AR reliability

Posted by

In a previous post, I alluded to the canonical article on AR 7.62×39. That is this article, an excellent resource by a guy who goes by Major Pandemic1. It identifies two issues with AR functioning in 7.62×39 rifles: cycling, which I will use to mean exclusively the movement of the action, and feeding, which I will use to mean the process by which ammunition is stripped from the top of the magazine and pushed forward into the chamber. These two issues are, at their base, related, and Major Pandemic hits upon the solutions pretty quickly, along with one which I believe to be superfluous. This is because he hit them in the wrong order.

It’s impossible to claim an AR-pattern rifle is unreliable without first making sure the gas system is functioning as designed. Thanks to parvusimperator’s recent book acquisitions on and general encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the scary black rifle, I have a few instances to cite. First on the list are the M16 and M16A1, where a change in powder from stick-type to ball-type yielded a change in pressure curve. The result: unreliable functioning2. Rounding out the list are your various carbines, from the CAR-15 in the 1960s and 1970s to the M4 carbine through to the super-short Mark 18/Close Quarters Battle Receiver, all of which fall prey to another issue: changing the barrel length without changing the gas system. When you shorten (or lengthen) a barrel, you decrease (or increase) the dwell time. That figure, the measure of how long a bullet stays in the barrel (and barrel pressures remain high), combines with the pressure curve to determine where the gas port should be placed, and how large the gas port ought to be.

Fortunately for 5.56 NATO shooters, the hard work has already been done, and barrel manufacturers have the sizes and locations pretty much figured out. Unfortunately for we 7.62 Russian Short shooters, the same body of work is not yet done, and shooting a different cartridge with a vastly different pressure profile is the very definition of messing around with the gas system. When doing your function tests, be prepared! If you run into cycling issues, try a lightweight buffer and/or a lightweight spring. (I believe the received wisdom is to try them in that order. Parvusimperator will correct me, if not.†) If that doesn’t suffice, you may have to increase the size of your gas port. With a drill, I mean, and a bit. Don’t increase the size too fast: my 7.62 AR functions perfectly with a factory gas tube size of about 1/12″. If you get to larger than 1/8″, you’ve almost certainly done something else wrong. A bluing pen (if you’re using a blued or nitrided barrel) should give you some finish around the gas port.

Next, and obviously, get dedicated magazines. The 7.62×39 cartridge is obscenely tapered, and only magazines specifically designed for it will push your cartridges up in front of the bolt carrier proper-like. This isn’t .300 Blackout; it’s not shaped anything like a 5.56 round, and any magazine not designed to feed 7.62×39, in a word, won’t. Midway’s AR-Stoner brand works well, and they won’t break the bank.

That brings us to feeding issues. By this point, you shouldn’t have any. If you clicked through to Major Pandemic’s article, you’ll see that he decided to dremel out the divider between the feed ramps. Granted, Bushmaster’s successful, functional 7.62×39 AR took the same tack, but my suspicion is that they made the same mistake other manufacturers, plus innumerable individual builders, made: an undergassed or overbuffered gun leaving magazines insufficient time to fully feed the next cartridge before the bolt carrier returns.

If and only if you simply can’t get your rifle to function correctly, you may consider a few courses of action before breaking out the dremel. Different magazines may help. It’s a bit of a shame that you may have to match a specific brand of magazine to your rifle, but if you were expecting rock-solid reliability with any equipment you care to find, you should have bought an AK. You might also try shooting it more. There’s a break-in period to any gun, and springs and lubrication may not take at first. If you do resort to dremeling and you have a barrel with a finish, don’t forget the wee touch-up pen to get your corrosion resistance back.

I think I’ll close with one final note on barrel selection. Faxon Firearms, who I’ve mentioned before, seem to make an excellent product with a gas port able to run just about any example of our favorite Russian intermediate cartridge without issue. I recommend their product. If you ignore that recommendation, I would at least suggest you look for a nitrided/Melonited barrel. Nothing else really makes sense for 7.62×39: presumably, you’re going to want to shoot cheap steel-cased, bimetal-jacket ammo, and a harder barrel helps to offset the additional wear you get from that choice. Combine that with the much lower velocities you have to work with compared to 5.56, and you may be surprised at the barrel life you end up with.

Then again, you may not. As you may have noticed, we don’t have sponsors around here, so I’m engaging in the most rampant of rampant speculation, not being able to afford 1) a second barrel to beat up and 2) the 20,000-40,000 rounds of ammunition it would likely take to really blow the first item out. As always, we’re curious about your experiences with 7.62×39 ARs, dear reader, so leave a comment if you have any.

1. I’m hardly one to talk about strange monikers, though.
2. I found some rather morbid documented accounts of US soldiers found dead next to malfunctioned, torn-down M16s, suggesting the men were killed while trying to fix their rifles.

† I would very strongly recommend messing with buffers, buffer weights, or even a reduced mass bolt carrier before touching the buffer spring. There are plenty of options out there to reduce the mass of the operating components if you want to go that route. Clipping spring coils is a good way to get plenty of malfunctions. -parvusimperator