15 lbs and good range, should have enough penetration, and it costs less than a quality SXS.



The U.S. Army is bringing in the really, really big guns.

Regular units will soon be issued a Swedish-built "recoilless" rifle that can fire an 84-mm. projectile nearly a mile and has the power to take out a tank. The 15-pound guns, which soldiers hold just above the shoulder to fire, were previously only issued to Special Forces. But after soldiers in Afghanistan repeatedly complained that insurgents were wise to the limitations of their M-16 rifles, the Pentagon has decided to make the Swedish-made Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System (MAAWS)-- or the M3 Carl Gustaf for short-- standard issue.

“This weapon system is a game changer for the American warfighter," John Belanger, a spokesperson for Saab, which manufactures the gun, told FoxNews.com. “Additionally, the M3 will provide our soldiers a cannon-caliber weapon that will reduce the dependence and cost associated to artillery and air support. Commanders now can deploy his units to any combat environment without overburdening his soldiers or need to trade lethality for portability.”

“This weapon system is a game changer for the American warfighter."
- John Belanger, the Saab Group

Belanger said the guns, which are equipped with a night-vision scope that runs alongside the massive barrel, will allow soldiers to "fix and destroy enemy targets day or night at ranges up to 1,250 meters.”

The weapons, which cost upwards of $20,000, are classified as recoilless rifles, but look more like rocket launchers -- and pack a similar punch. Because they are held above the shoulder, much of the propelling force escapes out of the back, instead of being absorbed by the soldier's body.

The standard infantry munitions soldiers have used for more than a decade in Afghanistan are not reusable and have a range of less than a third that of the Carl Gustaf, Belanger said. That means insurgents can attack U.S. soldiers from a safe distance.

“This gap in capability has forced our soldiers to maneuver under direct and effective fire for great distances to bring the enemy into the effective range of his weapons,” he said, adding that patrol leaders in the field often had to rely on air support and artillery when under attack.

"It operates just like a rifle," Bhuvanesh Thoguluva, chief of the Army munitions systems vehicle protection, rockets & shoulder-fired weapons branch said in a released statement during the testing phase in 2012. "After firing, the assistant gunner reloads it, and it can be fired again. On a disposable weapon you will find a maximum effective range of approximately 300 meters, whereas with the Gustaf you are talking about possibly up to 1,700 meters. That's a huge difference."

Great. An 84mm weapon which weighs 15 pounds and costs $20,000 +. Just what the infantryman needs to take with him on patrol. We already had a 7.62mm weapon which weighs about 9 pounds and is capable of hitting a 20 inch target repeatedly at 1000 yards. It is called the M14 and it is being called back into service in Afghanistan to provide fire support which the "rat gun" is incapable of (not to mention the AK47).

The only 84mm weapon currently being considered for military acquisition is the 84mm recoiless, commonly referred to as the Carl Gustaf or CG-rifle. Not a rifle by any standard.

Back to the future, like when the ivory hunters used 2 bore rifles and exploding shells for their elephants.

quote:

Originally posted by xausa:
Great. An 83mm weapon which weighs 15 pounds and costs $20,000 +. Just what the infantryman needs to take with him on patrol. We already had a 7.62mm weapon which weighs about 9 pounds and is capable of hitting a 20 inch target repeatedly at 1000 yards. It is called the M14 and it is being called back into service in Afghanistan to provide fire support which the "rat gun" is incapable of (not to mention the AK47).

Meh,
M14 is a relic from when iron sights ruled. Major PITA to scope them.

SR-25 and its clones for the win.

quote:

Originally posted by Macs B:
The only 84mm weapon currently being considered for military acquisition is the 84mm recoiless, commonly referred to as the Carl Gustaf or CG-rifle. Not a rifle by any standard .

But it is and it has rifling that rotates the shell.
I should know because i used one for 6 months in 1985. It was more like 28lbs at the time (no kevlar and carbon fibers) and no night scope.
The propelling charge is 800grams of smokeless and today they have a 500ml bag of salt water behing the main charge. That reduses rearward blast so to an extent that it can be fired indors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jZij3gH3xA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvUwAQ58h8A

Much in the same way a WWII bazooka would be considered a rifle. I think for all practical purposes it would be more accurate to classify these devices as rocket launchers.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
M14 is a relic from when iron sights ruled. Major PITA to scope them.

SR-25 and its clones for the win.

The SR-25 uses a rotating bolt and a direct impingement gas system, just like its predecessor, the AR10. This means that it has no primary extraction capability and it spews powder gas and residue directly onto the bolt, a system Stoner himself abandoned when he designed the AR18. The AR system makes a superior match rifle, particularly in caliber .223, where its low recoil is a great advantage in rapid fire stages, but it has to be kept surgically clean to assure reliable functioning. This is not a problem for a match rifle or by extension, a sniper rifle, but such a system has no place in the hands of ordinary infantrymen.

The M14, like its predecessor the M1, has been proven to function under the most severe circumstances and conditions. It is a vastly superior military weapon. I shot one in competition for well over 20 years, and no, it is not a PITA to scope, using the right (Brookfield) scope mount.

quote:

Originally posted by Macs B:
Much in the same way a WWII bazooka would be considered a rifle. I think for all practical purposes it would be more accurate to classify these devices as rocket launchers.

The bazooka is a rocket launcher, and it has no rifling, just a straight tube.

JPK

$20000 a shot.
It is like throwing away your double after every shot or two.
I have fired a Carl Gustav m/42 20mm recoilless. There was much talk of it as the ultimate jackrabbit gun. It also sat on the shoulder and had bad backblast, was about 30 lbs but balanced well.

Mark

The brand NEW M4 Carl Gustav is even lighter:

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Clark:
$20000 a shot.
It is like throwing away your double after every shot or two.
I have fired a Carl Gustav m/42 20mm recoilless. There was much talk of it as the ultimate jackrabbit gun. It also sat on the shoulder and had bad backblast, was about 30 lbs but balanced well.

Mark

Its not $20,000 per shot -thats the cost of the weapons-not the rounds