HK-417A2 a worthy replacement for G3 battle rifles.

[A1Kaid]

Oh my god, the number of straw man arguments, and basic misrepresentation of facts in this quote of yours is amazingly high.

The G-36 was an example, i said nothing about if it was Pakistan's only choice. Again, a straw man argument.

Next, you're ignoring every other component of a weapon with your "basic principle",and saying that no R&D is needed, when clearly it is. India's multi-caliber rifle is still in development, and has been for years now.

Now you're saying that the company didn't innovate and made a bad product, which are all your own subjective opinion, so don't pass them of as facts.

Frances firearms industry had quite a bit of experience with NATO caliber rounds, and was one of the first nations to adopt the new caliber. You're giving too much importance on a caliber of a bullet as related to the development of a rifle. A bullet's shape and size is usually addressed with the magazine size and barrel length and weight, as well as material used in the barrel (such as chrome), nothing else is effected.

How do you think HK Colt, FN, and Norinco made their rifles? With money, which they had,and it took them years and many failed attempts to make their desiges feasible. Hell, the Colt M-16 was originally an Armalite (AR-10) design, which Colt bought, because Colt had for years failed to make their own design of an assault rifle viable. POF has experience with cloning and making existing designs, not creating a brand new rifle. The POF-5 example you gave previously,is an MP-5 clone. Designing a brand new rifle is completely different than cloning an existing rifle, ask any gun enthusiast here or anywhere.

The M-16, when it came to production, was terrible. The short amount of time that was spend on developing it, ended up costing the lives of US soldiers in Vietnam. The rifles were actually sent back at one point, and redesigned so jamming and ammunition waste wouldn't be a problem. The M-16 has been redesigned multiple times to fix it's continued problems, and 90% of it's problems were addressed only dozens of years later.

Look, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, just stop.

Frances firearms industry had quite a bit of experience with NATO caliber rounds, and was one of the first nations to adopt the new caliber. You're giving too much importance on a caliber of a bullet as related to the development of a rifle. A bullet's shape and size is usually addressed with the magazine size and barrel length and weight, as well as material used in the barrel (such as chrome), nothing else is effected.

The caliber of the round can/does alters the magazine size, the firing pin, the buffer tube, barrel (not necessarily it's length like you said--you can fire a 5.56 from a 14.5"-20" barrel), as well as the chamber and many other factors of the rifle. Change of caliber is a big factor, and the 5.56 being new at the time was studied and researched how it's pressure in the chamber and barrel would work best those are very important factors. New barrels and rifling needed to be developed to make the 5.56 work best, testing on which barrel lengths achieve the best stability and muzzle velocity on the round had to be researched, new trigger groups had to be developed, new buffer tubes that would suppress the recoil, a full-auto sear had to be developed, and other dynamics had changed with the introduction of the 5.56 rifles.

nothing else is effected

Wrong, it effects the chamber, feed ramps, buffer tube, firing pin, the bolt carrier group, and alters the trigger group. See you don't know much about this topic, so just zip it.

The M-16, when it came to production, was terrible. The short amount of time that was spend on developing it, ended up costing the lives of US soldiers in Vietnam. The rifles were actually sent back at one point, and redesigned so jamming and ammunition waste wouldn't be a problem

The M-16 wasn't at fault, that is a myth only internet fools keep believing, talk to real Veterans and even Eugene Stoner clarified on this topic the soldiers at the time were wrongfully told by the army that they didn't need to clean and lubricate the rifle, so the rifles would get dirty (especially in the chamber and bolt carrier group) and then begin to create some trouble. M-16 passed military testing and was then approved. Yes, the M-16 has had further enhancement further improving it's design... This is no valid reason not to develop a new rifle yourself, that's what the design process is, you learn from these things and produce a great rifle that the Ar-15/M-16 is today. It's not like all soldiers had these problems but many that were remiss did.

The G-36 was an example, i said nothing about if it was Pakistan's only choice. Again, a straw man argument.

And it was a very bad example, why would you use a bad example to make a point?

You really don't know much about firearms in general, and just use google to aid you in your arguments.


The only reason you don't support developing a new rifle because something could go wrong? You might as well not develop anything based on your argument, you might as well let other countries and companies do all the work and then hope to get licensed manufacturing from them. What a pathetic argument you have.

 

[That Guy]

The caliber of the round can/does alters the magazine size, the firing pin, the buffer tube, barrel (not necessarily it's length like you said--you can fire a 5.56 from a 14.5"-20" barrel), as well as the chamber and many other factors of the rifle. Change of caliber is a big factor, and the 5.56 being new at the time was studied and researched how it's pressure in the chamber and barrel would work best those are very important factors. New barrels and rifling needed to be developed to make the 5.56 work best, testing on which barrel lengths achieve the best stability and muzzle velocity on the round had to be researched, new trigger groups had to be developed, new buffer tubes that would suppress the recoil, a full-auto sear had to be developed, and other dynamics had changed with the introduction of the 5.56 rifles.



Wrong, it effects the chamber, feed ramps, buffer tube, firing pin, the bolt carrier group, and alters the trigger group. See you don't know much about this topic, so just zip it.



The M-16 wasn't at fault, that is a myth only internet fools keep believing, talk to real Veterans and even Eugene Stoner clarified on this topic the soldiers at the time were wrongfully told by the army that they didn't need to clean and lubricate the rifle, so the rifles would get dirty (especially in the chamber and bolt carrier group) and then begin to create some trouble. M-16 passed military testing and was then approved. Yes, the M-16 has had further enhancement further improving it's design... This is no valid reason not to develop a new rifle yourself, that's what the design process is, you learn from these things and produce a great rifle that the Ar-15/M-16 is today. It's not like all soldiers had these problems but many that were remiss did.



And it was a very bad example, why would you use a bad example to make a point?

You really don't know much about firearms in general, and just use google to aid you in your arguments.


The only reason you don't support developing a new rifle because something could go wrong? You might as well not develop anything based on your argument, you might as well let other countries and companies do all the work and then hope to get licensed manufacturing from them. What a pathetic argument you have.

You know what? I'm done. If you don't want to listen to facts, and want to continue with presenting the same tired old argument over and over again, that's up to you. I've made my argument quite clear, and so far you haven't presented a single piece of evidence to prove I'm wrong. I'm seriously tired of your personal attacks and your misrepresentation of information, you win.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Apparently theres a Pakistani 50th Airborne Division. Any details on that?

Not much info but the 50th airborne was involved in swat offensive..

Pakistan troops kill over 50 Taliban
BY JAVED KHAN

BUNER, Pakistan Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:10am BST

(Reuters) - Pakistani troops took the main town in strategically important Buner Valley on Wednesday after dropping by helicopter behind Taliban lines, killing more than 50 militants in two days, the military said.

Apparently theres a Pakistani 50th Airborne Division. Any details on that?

Not much info but the 50th airborne was involved in swat offensive..

Pakistan troops kill over 50 Taliban
BY JAVED KHAN

BUNER, Pakistan Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:10am BST

(Reuters) - Pakistani troops took the main town in strategically important Buner Valley on Wednesday after dropping by helicopter behind Taliban lines, killing more than 50 militants in two days, the military said.