# New Zealand's New Rifle



## AWP (Aug 20, 2015)

It looks like the NZDF has selected an AR platform from Lewis Machine and Tool.

Individual Weapon Replacement [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Did Australia finalize their award? I thought they were trying to replace the Steyr?


----------



## x SF med (Aug 20, 2015)

Latest pics.....    (sorry guys, it was way too easy and fun to post this)


----------



## digrar (Aug 20, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Did Australia finalize their award? I thought they were trying to replace the Steyr?



Replaced it with more of the same. The EF88, replacing the F88.
 1RAR has it on issue, 30,000 units to follow. Fixed barrel, different receiver, bolt carrier and bolt are the same to look at, the butt group is a bit different, over all it's lighter and better balanced and better suited to carry extras like UGL, NADs, torches, sights, bi pods etc.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 20, 2015)

It was going to be the LMT or the HK416, I wanted the sweet HK goodness but alas.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 25, 2015)

I've got a funny feeling the police have a few LMTs floating around too. Might see some more in a group buy when this goes through- this govt has been big on that


----------



## gafkiwi (Sep 19, 2015)

Mac_NZ said:


> It was going to be the LMT or the HK416, I wanted the sweet HK goodness but alas.


416's are a good platform, but I don't think them or the SCAR for that matter really deserve the god like reputation some seem to place on them. A lot of the modern AR's from reputable firms have little between them, be they D.I. or Piston


----------



## RetPara (Sep 22, 2015)

Since they did ask for a bid from LMT.   Is this the Lewis you are discussing?


----------



## Crusader74 (Sep 26, 2015)

Mac_NZ said:


> It was going to be the LMT or the HK416, I wanted the sweet HK goodness but alas.




The 416 is some piece of kit.. Got to play with one the other day in work. We've recently upgraded our Steyrs (called Mod 14)  to encompass picatinny rails, new 2 point sling and an Acog so we'll not be changing for a while. Our SOF now exclusively
use the HK platforms.


----------



## gafkiwi (Sep 26, 2015)

Are they still looking at replacing your guys M-203's or staying with the current one?


----------



## Mac_NZ (Sep 26, 2015)

How are you guys getting on using Acogs with the height difference between the A3's receiver and an M4s?  I remember our weapons team having issues trying to get around it culminating correctingly and we just had to use different holds.


----------



## Crusader74 (Sep 26, 2015)

gafkiwi said:


> Are they still looking at replacing your guys M-203's or staying with the current one?



If that question is directed at me, yes they are looking at changing our 203 from dimacios (Colt) to the HK side loading 203.


----------



## Crusader74 (Sep 26, 2015)

Mac_NZ said:


> How are you guys getting on using Acogs with the height difference between the A3's receiver and an M4s?  I remember our weapons team having issues trying to get around it culminating correctingly and we just had to use different holds.



I 've not heard of any issues.. The picatinny might make the difference.


----------



## Crusader74 (Sep 26, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> It looks like the NZDF has selected an AR platform from Lewis Machine and Tool.
> 
> Individual Weapon Replacement [Ministry of Defence NZ]
> 
> Did Australia finalize their award? I thought they were trying to replace the Steyr?




Their Steyrs recently had an upgrade too.


----------



## pardus (Sep 26, 2015)

Personally I like the Steyr, it was my first Military issued rifle and I'm quite comfortable with it.
That said, I think it was the wrong purchase for NZ. 
With the ANZUS debacle I understand it, but the ANZUS debacle should never have happened either.

Isn't the LMT a direct impingement platform? If so, I think that is a bad choice by the NZDF. Won't be the first one, won't be that last. Plenty of retardedness in the Kiwi Military as well... 



RetPara said:


> Since they did ask for a bid from LMT.   Is this the Lewis you are discussing?



The M60's grandfather...


----------



## 104TN (Sep 26, 2015)

pardus said:


> ...Isn't the LMT a direct impingement platform?



LMT does make some piston rifles, but the weapon that won the NZDF contract appears to be one of their DI models.
Rifle specs at CQB16


----------



## pardus (Sep 26, 2015)

rick said:


> LMT does make some piston rifles, but the weapon that won the NZDF contract appears to be one of their DI models.
> Rifle specs at CQB16



Seems like you are correct Rick, thank you.

A step backwards in technology IMO.


----------



## gafkiwi (Sep 27, 2015)

Crusader74 said:


> If that question is directed at me, yes they are looking at changing our 203 from dimacios (Colt) to the HK side loading 203.


Yeah, cheers for that. I'd seen mentioned on another forum that it was a possibility. Not a fan of the large profile of some of the newer 40mm launchers. It would be interesting to see the interface they come up to attach the H&K to the Steyr


----------



## gafkiwi (Sep 27, 2015)

pardus said:


> Seems like you are correct Rick, thank you.
> 
> A step backwards in technology IMO.


Personally I think the Piston vs DI debate is a big non event and more based on creative marketing. Our 7.62 LMTs run quite cleanly even when suppressed and I've used them side by side with H&K 417's and would take the LMT and day of the week. If its a quality made rifle in the hands of a trained soldier, wether its DI or piston is largely irrelevant. By all accounts the 416 was at the back of the pack compared to the rest of the AR's at the trials.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 27, 2015)

About the only real advantage of piston over DI is when using suppressors (can affect cycling and dumps a lot more gas in the BCG), IMO. However, I've countlessly seen DI gun shoot more accurate then Piston guns. I've had it explained a bunch a different ways, but however its explained, it seems to be a common factor, when judging accuracy.

Cleaning is obviously a plus in the piston department, but being my DI carbine hasn't been cleaned in about 4 years and several thousand rounds, and that it still runs like a raped date, I'm thinking the argument on cleaning is not so much a big issue. 

My $.02


----------



## gafkiwi (Sep 27, 2015)

Yeah, I've seen some D.I.'s with a poor combo's of rifle, Barrel length and suppressor type that have blackened all the rds in the mag after 2 shots. Pistons just tend to move the crap elsewhere with other issues i.e. bled off gas out of the gas block damaging PEQ's etc or limiting where they can be placed


----------



## pardus (Sep 27, 2015)

gafkiwi said:


> Personally I think the Piston vs DI debate is a big non event and more based on creative marketing. Our 7.62 LMTs run quite cleanly even when suppressed and I've used them side by side with H&K 417's and would take the LMT and day of the week. If its a quality made rifle in the hands of a trained soldier, wether its DI or piston is largely irrelevant. By all accounts the 416 was at the back of the pack compared to the rest of the AR's at the trials.



Very interesting about the 416 & 417's, I was surprised to read that.
I just dont like hot, dirty gas fouling and heating my BCG. I'm also biased being brought up on the Steyr, and having owned SLR's for many years.



JAB said:


> About the only real advantage of piston over DI is when using suppressors (can affect cycling and dumps a lot more gas in the BCG), IMO. However, I've countlessly seen DI gun shoot more accurate then Piston guns. I've had it explained a bunch a different ways, but however its explained, it seems to be a common factor, when judging accuracy.
> 
> Cleaning is obviously a plus in the piston department, but being my DI carbine hasn't been cleaned in about 4 years and several thousand rounds, and that it still runs like a raped date, I'm thinking the argument on cleaning is not so much a big issue.
> 
> My $.02



Yeah I've always heard DI guns are more accurate. But for for a rifle that isn't much good past 300m, how much does the minute amount of accuracy matter?
I prefer my gun to work everytime (i.e. be cleaner) and be as cool as is possible, hence my preference for a piston gun.
That said, DI guns are obviously fine.


----------



## gafkiwi (Sep 27, 2015)

The rifles in the trials were put through our Manouver Forces (combat trade/unit) weapons qual, so they went back as far as 600m. Accuracy apparently didn't seem to be an issue more the energy they retained at that range.
The H&K's are a victim of their own PR tidal wave. A solid platform but with a large following mainly due to media exposure of users and computer games as opposed to actual users. In my experiance its been a big build up based on this rep and then the realisation once its used against other platforms (DI and Piston AR's) that it isn't a "silver bullet" or doesn't do any thing markedly better than any other good quality AR.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 27, 2015)

pardus said:


> Very interesting about the 416 & 417's, I was surprised to read that.
> I just dont like hot, dirty gas fouling and heating my BCG. I'm also biased being brought up on the Steyr, and having owned SLR's for many years.
> 
> 
> ...



As for not much good past 300m, I would say 450-500m kill capability is more correct, depending on barrel length. But in theory, having a 1-2moa capability at 300m vs a 3-4moa is the difference between 5-10" cone of fire vs 15-20" cone of fire at 300m.


----------



## pardus (Sep 28, 2015)

JAB said:


> As for not much good past 300m, I would say 450-500m kill capability is more correct, depending on barrel length. But in theory, having a 1-2moa capability at 300m vs a 3-4moa is the difference between 5-10" cone of fire vs 15-20" cone of fire at 300m.



IIRC @Mac_NZ posted about a study done in NZ on the 5.56 which concluded that the round was ineffective at killing beyond roughly 400m, and that included using the best (77 grain etc...) rounds available as well as standard issue.
The standard issue rounds and rifle in the US Army make the M4 platform a 3 ish MOA weapon system IIRC.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Sep 28, 2015)

There was a DTA paper kicking around the intranet from the DMR trials when they were pushing for a juiced up Steyr that showed the 5.56 Mk262 (?) was lacking the energy to kill past 400 odd meters.  I talked with Maj B about it back then and he said 7.62 was the winner in that department and sent us a 417 to play with, I liked it but hated the ridiculous mags.  It was not long after he said they were going to tap into the LMT as it was proven by the Brits and had all the test data there to back it up as opposed to reinventing the wheel.  When I saw Fish last he said that it was LMT or 416 for the win, might have just been his personal opinion.  

Did they do the trials with suppressors on?  The last gig I did with ISWRUP testing the TA31NZ Acog we were using Surefire cans and they were pretty nice, fouled up the chamber a lot and all the rounds in the mag were covered in carbon though.  There was a few other odd ball suppressors there too but I preferred the Surefire, apart from the release mech jamming up on mine.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 28, 2015)

Interesting, can someone give a link, I would like yo read about it.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Sep 28, 2015)

I just tried looking for it on publications at the DTA website but can't find it there, I can find the one for sound pressure level of the Steyr AUG though.  Maybe @gafkiwi knows where it is now but I no longer have access to the intranet, its a bit like AKO.


----------



## gafkiwi (Sep 28, 2015)

A requirement  was the rifles had to have a QD suppressor set up. All the rifles can take suppressors but they will only be issued to specific roles or requirements. In another forum I've seen the Surefire WARCOMP mentioned as the flash suppressor/comp the LMT had. The DMW's have surefire can's, I'm guessing LMT use them as a standard. It would make sense to stick with the one supplier and range.

Don't really know much about the testing or reports etc. But there is alot of discussion about barrel lengths and whether we'll have 1 or a range of lengths to pick from as the barrel change is done in a minute or 2 by the user. Main thing being getting the best mix of range and accuracy vs flexibility of the platform.  I don't see the range as being such a big thing in a rifle section as the already have 2 x 7.62 guns and the 7.62 DMW with a 4.5-18X Leupold.

On a side note the LMT can be converted to or from piston in under 5 mins


----------



## Poccington (Sep 28, 2015)

Mac_NZ said:


> How are you guys getting on using Acogs with the height difference between the A3's receiver and an M4s?  I remember our weapons team having issues trying to get around it culminating correctingly and we just had to use different holds.



When I first fired with the new Acog mounted it certainly seemed like it was slightly higher than the old optical sight, it wasn't a major drama though.

The new VTAC 2 point slings we have are pretty nice as well.


----------



## gafkiwi (Sep 28, 2015)

Poccington said:


> When I first fired with the new Acog mounted it certainly seemed like it was slightly higher than the old optical sight, it wasn't a major drama though.
> 
> The new VTAC 2 point slings we have are pretty nice as well.


As Mac_NZ said some of our guys did have issues with ACOG's on the rails, some didn't. Guys would either have to retrain themselves on a slightly different cheek weld position or make up a cheek piece if it was that much of an issue


----------

