Can your weapon be run over by a tank and still be used?

[Gordon]

There's been alot of BS thrown around about this kind of testing of weapons recently.

I don't think any of the people who tested any weapon by this means ever expected a soldier in the field to bury his weapon for a week, or have it run over by a tank, or have it dragged 20 k's through a wood.

I reckon, now i'm not sure about this, but I reckon that the idea behind this testing is if "X" weapon can put up with this much torture then it can easily put up with anything a soldier can put it through and that makes it more than field worthy, which is surely a good thing.

Maybe i'm missing the point ....

[James]

I've never tested a weapon, but when I was on active duty, the M-16 had been in service for about 30 years. With a little bit of regular maintenance, it was fine. Ditto for the M-249 (Minimi), M-60, and M-240 (Gimpy for my cousins accross the pond). I think your thoughts about severe testing are pretty accurate.

It is interesting to me that the U.S. is experimenting with "Future Warrior" or whatever the digital/cyborg soldier of the future is being called, and they are looking for a WEAPON that requires less maintenance. I would be far more concerned with all those electrical gadgets working properly, and take a rifle that needs a bit of oil and a barrel punch every once in a while.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

A few years ago a d%$khead in our army left his Steyr IW on the bonnet(hood) of a landrover. Another soldier got in said landrover and drove off, unable to see the IW due to the spare tyre. He got up to about 30 kph before the IW fell off and somersaulted along the gravel road for a few metres.

Result.

Optical sight/carry handle snapped off.

First soldier spent some time turning big rocks into small rocks.

[Beloved Shiv]

"Can your weapon be run over by a tank and still be used?"

No.

It even rusts sometimes, if I don't care for it.

But it can shoot bullets at targets I aim for.

[California Joe]

The 1911 model Colt .45 probably can.

[GazB]

I think the "run over by a tank" test is dreamed up by manufacturers to get people to look at Plastic rifles as replacements for older heavier metal and wood ones.

The Steyr was supposed to have been tested by being run over by a 1.5 ton truck and light 4 wheel drive vehicles.

[hood]

Reminds me of the columbia jackets.

http://www.columbia.com/friend_movies/zipper.zip

[Seraphim]

I think its on camelbaks website...they have a video clip of one their bladders full of water being runned over by a toyota truck and not bursting.

[Saranof]

Well, the ak47 sure gets some points there...
btw, how many weapons do they actually test like that?

[front]

"if "X" weapon can put up with this much torture then it can easily put up with anything a soldier can put it through and that makes it more than field worthy, which is surely a good thing."

Yes. The rifle I used once could be run over by a tank. It was a Lee Enfield. It could be run over by a tank... no problem. I'll tell ya something though... I'd give someone else a hundred quid to shoot it after said "tank" 'deployed' it's treads on the No.4 MkII. :-)

Gordon... relax.

"There's been alot of BS thrown around about this kind of testing of weapons recently."

There is a lot of BS in your post here though my friend :-):

1) No one here has ever admitted to testing a battlefield rifle for any army.

Those who, in the past, and involved in the build might say "YES"... those who eventually carry might say "NAY!"

Where is the BS?

2) "I don't think any of the people who tested any weapon by this means ever expected a soldier"

Gordon? Not only did the 'people' who tested any weapon expect it to do anything except 'win the contract' to make any 'weapon' excel in it's supposed "tender", but very few soldiers were asked.

"I reckon, now i'm not sure about this, but I reckon that the idea behind this testing is if "X" weapon can put up with this much torture then it can easily put up with anything a soldier can put it through and that makes it more than field worthy, which is surely a good thing. "

I reckon it just needs to shoot the bullets.

How can we put this in the right frame?

Contracts *seem* to go to:

a) lowest price
b) political favours
c) biggest lobby
d) retired Generals aka CEOs
c) coolest space-age kit which make other low-tech kit (though proven) seem obsolete... maybe if CEOs, ex-Generals make the cut... a la Franks.

Gordon? A rifleman in ANY army has never even had a proper pair of boots.

Feck the above TANK!

cheers

front

[Ekie]

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/6d3a8b6d.jpg

[budanski]

That says it all

rofl

[Seraphim]

You guys ever see those video clips of iraq with the apc or bradley running over a bunch of ak's and other stuff.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

And here I was thinking eastern blockweapons were sooooo much more durable than their western counterparts :lol:

And yeah, the Steyr IW was supposed to have been run over by certain vehicles during testing. But 'real live' use indicates that perhaps someone was not being completely honest in pushing those results...........how unusual. The sling swivels won't even withstand parachute operations.

[Hullebullen]

I think the picture of the AK says it best...have a little soldiers story on the subject, not really on the same topic but it's kinda related. A tank crew from my battalion were doing maintenance on their Leopard tank after an exercise. One guy leaned his rifle against the turret. When gunner tried to rotate the turret the rifle got stuck, jamming the turret. The gunner, not knowing the cause of the jam continued trying to rotate. It resulted in one slightly V-shaped rifle and the Leopard's gyro also had to be scrapped, replacement cost was something like 10.000-15.000 USD. The crew were collectively awarded that week's tracklink. We had an "award" for those people pulling of the most stupid stunt of the week. The award, a piece of tracklink from a tank to be polished...

[James]

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/6d3a8b6d.jpg

Well this has gone and burst my bubble...

[GazB]

I don't know of any rifle that could take being run over by a heavy tracked vehicle. That AK photo seems to me to have been at least an APC, which assuming it was a western on would be at least 18-30 tons.

I also don't think I would want a rifle that could withstand such treatment as it would have to be too strongly built. The AK has shown itself able to to take "normal" knocks in combat and keep working.
I have heard stories that the CIA in Vietnam came up with the idea of getting some Russian and Chinese ammo fo AKs and replacing the powder with C4. ( The idea behind it being to reduce the enemies confidence in Soviet and Chinese equipment by making it appear faulty.).
They had tests before they actually tried to plant such rounds in the field and found that all that happened was that it recoiled a bit harder than normal and the primer was often blown out of position and into the receiver by the extra pressure.
(Don't Try This At Home)

There were also tests using the AK under water and in space. It functioned reliably in both environments, though in water the bullet started to yaw and tumble as soon as it left the muzzle and was completely inaccurate and ineffectual at any sensible range.

[Seraphim]

Ya during vietnam they left rifles with "****y bullets" in them. I dont know what they used to replace the powder though.