NZ Defence Force to buy 82 new high-tech rifles for $4 million

@Sarvo, can you pls explain to me what the difference is between offensive vs defensive weaponry ?

What is the military roll of these things? My pick is they are primarily more portable anti equipment rather than anti personnel, though personnel will usually be caught in the equipment. Built to use a range of off the shelf ammo with various terminal properties.

I can well imagine our guys punching well above their weight against other countries forces, it's the kiwi way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy79

I don't care how much it costs to have troops armed and trained to the best they can be. but if your trained specialist, and snipers are, then you should be able to out do the local hick with his civilian gun any day.

---

So a civilian wins over a soldier in a single match setting? It makes the civilian a better shot that day, but not a better sniper.

Sniping is of course whole lot to do with with other matters than purely pulling the trigger and often also about not pulling the trigger.

Have you served in your military there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy79

@R93 think you have spent to long over seas and think you may have forgotten that kiwis are the most self righteous opinionated folks on the planet hahaha its sad but true:thumbsup:
as a result you will get a bunch of ramblings from madmen on occasion who may or may not know any better
for instance @Rushy believes Waikato is mothers milk, the nectar of gods. he is nutts

---

Ahh ooh pffftttt. Non believer. Ha ha ha ha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadgetman

What is the military roll of these things? My pick is they are primarily more portable anti equipment rather than anti personnel, though personnel will usually be caught in the equipment. Built to use a range of off the shelf ammo with various terminal properties.


I can well imagine our guys punching well above their weight against other countries forces, it's the kiwi way.

---

I saw it many times when I was serving. We whooped the Aussies, Brits and the Yanks in speed and accuracy on a number of occasions.

Anyone can develop the skill to shoot well but the focus and discipline to shoot well while shit is happening is the result of good training and frequent practise. I was hitting the 1800 yard target well with my .338 at the Toby shoot but I am not so sure anymore that I would have been able to if it was returning fire and the buggers mates were out flanking me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommygun

Perhaps you can add more to conversations on the Green Peace facebook page rather than here, if that's how you feel? The thread is under the "Firearms, optics, and accessories" tab, we are discussing the Army's new purchases here.
I think it says a lot that they've obviously had a healthy budget for these rifles, and have decided to stick Nightforce scopes on them =)

---

Did they go with nightforce?
No wonder the article describes them as day time optics.

I cant believe people are complaining at the cost, $4mill would pay for what, maybe a k of roading, or maybe the catering cost of a handful of council meetings. With the added bonus that a sniper with a Barrett as door gunner in an Nh90 is probably the closest thing we'll get to a defensive air force. Money well spent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nibblet

Did they go with nightforce?
No wonder the article describes them as day time optics.

---

atacr 5x25 apparently.
awesome scopes!

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Probably ideal/necessary for the overseas roles that we are part of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

I saw it many times when I was serving. We whooped the Aussies, Brits and the Yanks in speed and accuracy on a number of occasions.

Anyone can develop the skill to shoot well but the focus and discipline to shoot well while shit is happening is the result of good training and frequent practise. I was hitting the 1800 yard target well with my .338 at the Toby shoot but I am not so sure anymore that I would have been able to if it was returning fire and the buggers mates were out flanking me.

---

And how many times have our fly boys won the find the sub contests with some antiquated old Andovers. Pass the parcel with ancient C130's that flew in looking like it had been used as a hay barn, only to be cleaned up and win the prettiest contest too. Everyone wanted the flying kiwis to go up against them in slow old Skyhawkes because they knew the guys in the hot seat would test them. Our Navy and Army did the same.

Going to be good when the lads on the ground get their new kit. I guarantee they will get way more out of them than they were designed for.

Other examples of professionals usually being beaten by amateurs, top marching girl teams cannot be beaten by any military, hobbyist woodworkers will beat a builder for fit and finish, show animal nutters will beat a farmer for animal presentation, ... I know who I'd want to fight a war, build a multi story and produce animals for the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

@Sarvo, can you pls explain to me what the difference is between offensive vs defensive weaponry ?

---

The actual weapon - No difference - it is the same weapon just in differing hands.
My point was - its intended use.

NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
We (NZ) are a "partner" to this Treaty Organization - why - as we are South Pacific not North Atlantic.
This weaponry would have been purchased to adhere to the agreement with partnership to NATO.
NZ (IMHO) - will never be attacked.
So weaponry like these weapons purchased, are obviously to be used in another part of the World for "NATO" at their demand and request.

A lot of good people on this forum, and I respect everyone to the extent it is deserved....

However, the FORUM F$%KWIT makes one post..... and doesn't contribute anything further.... and people fire up the keyboards.

Please respect opinions and remember that we all like shooting, hunting and talking shit. Hopefully we can keep it clean and respectful?:thumbsup:

Hey @Nickoli that's not fair... @Philipo hasn't weighed in on this discussion - He is the undisputed forum f*wit, ok maybe not undisputed. Come to think of it there is a long list of contenders for that prestigious title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nibblet

Did they go with nightforce?
No wonder the article describes them as day time optics.

---

Hahahahahahahaha, yep the logo was visible there.
Let me guess, you like the fancy German optics? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommygun

Hahahahahahahaha, yep the logo was visible there.
Let me guess, you like the fancy German optics? :D

---

I missed that.

Don't see the point in spending all that money.

If it doesn't say Burris, it doesn't do the business.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarvo

Oh really - exactly my Point!!
What part about NATO and its roll in killing indiscriminately do you not understand

Fucking GREEN Peace - go fly a kite

---

Any of it mate. You're upset that NZ soldiers, who's job it is is to kill enemy soldiers using rifles (or at least as far as the infantry is concerned), have some new rifles to do that?
I'm pretty sure that is literally their job description. Sounds like you haven't peeled yourself away from your sources of conspiracy theory inspiration long enough to realise that while the NZDF is trained and equipped to fight like most armies, they actually don't play much of a front-line role. Since the Vietnam war they have typically been in a peacekeeping role, or deployed to train soldiers in the foreign country in question, as a rule. Yet you are spouting some bullshit about NZ somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine (your words, not mine). NZ doesn't use its army defensively or offensively; there is a third option, and that is aiding our allies in their military efforts, and yes we like to think this happens to fight evil and uphold humanity's values, but it is just as much in order to support our allies because that is what we are obliged to do if our nation that wants to be taken seriously in the geopolitical world, and because we want to maintain military ties with them in case we should ever need them (god forbid)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorkus

Hey @Nickoli that's not fair... @Philipo hasn't weighed in on this discussion - He is the undisputed forum f*wit, ok maybe not undisputed. Come to think of it there is a long list of contenders for that prestigious title.

---

That's Trolling for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommygun

Any of it mate. You're upset that NZ soldiers, who's job it is is to kill enemy soldiers using rifles (or at least as far as the infantry is concerned), have some new rifles to do that?
I'm pretty sure that is literally their job description. Sounds like you haven't peeled yourself away from your sources of conspiracy theory inspiration long enough to realise that while the NZDF is trained and equipped to fight like most armies, they actually don't play much of a front-line role. Since the Vietnam war they have typically been in a peacekeeping role, or deployed to train soldiers in the foreign country in question, as a rule. Yet you are spouting some bullshit about NZ somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine (your words, not mine). NZ doesn't use its army defensively or offensively; there is a third option, and that is aiding our allies in their military efforts, and yes we like to think this happens to fight evil and uphold humanity's values, but it is just as much in order to support our allies because that is what we are obliged to do if our nation that wants to be taken seriously in the geopolitical world, and because we want to maintain military ties with them in case we should ever need them (god forbid)

---

Calm down

My father fought in WWII - spent 1 month shy of a 5 years on "frontline" North Africa - an then Europe
Came back as an Officer with an MM

Where did I infer that NZ soldiers were "somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine" ?????
You missed my point entirely!!
Point being – why/what do we need such weaponry at such exaggerated cost ??
I know the answer – and if you cannot put 2+2 together – then you sir are the conspiracists

You should also difine "the enemey"
Or more to the point WHO difines who is the enemey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommygun

Any of it mate. You're upset that NZ soldiers, who's job it is is to kill enemy soldiers using rifles (or at least as far as the infantry is concerned), have some new rifles to do that?
I'm pretty sure that is literally their job description. Sounds like you haven't peeled yourself away from your sources of conspiracy theory inspiration long enough to realise that while the NZDF is trained and equipped to fight like most armies, they actually don't play much of a front-line role. Since the Vietnam war they have typically been in a peacekeeping role, or deployed to train soldiers in the foreign country in question, as a rule. Yet you are spouting some bullshit about NZ somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine (your words, not mine). NZ doesn't use its army defensively or offensively; there is a third option, and that is aiding our allies in their military efforts, and yes we like to think this happens to fight evil and uphold humanity's values, but it is just as much in order to support our allies because that is what we are obliged to do if our nation that wants to be taken seriously in the geopolitical world, and because we want to maintain military ties with them in case we should ever need them (god forbid)

---

Calm down

My father fought in WWII - spent 1 month shy of a 5 years on "frontline" North Africa - an then Europe
Came back as an Officer with an MM

Where did I infer that NZ soldiers were "somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine" ?????
You missed my point entirely!!
Point being – why/what do we need such weaponry at such exaggerated cost ??
I know the answer – and if you cannot put 2+2 together – then you sir are the conspiracists

Looks like the embers are settling in this thread.

Insert random inflammatory comment here.

And I’m pretty sure I had a relative in the Crimean war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alonzo

Looks like the embers are settling in this thread.

Insert random inflammatory comment here.

And I’m pretty sure I had a relative in the Crimean war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

My best friend served in the 2016 meme war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nibblet

Did they go with nightforce?
No wonder the article describes them as day time optics.

---

I have a mate who served alongside some other special force in service. (I wont say which army as he was deliberately a bit vague on who was there with him...) But his comment went along the lines of "the gear we had then (mid 90s) was better than what the mid range civilian stuff is now. He was referring to night vision in particular. Now I am not saying for a second that tech has not improved in 20 years. It has come a long way, but the military gear (especially tech type gear) is usually far ahead of what we see or even dream of. In the same way the tech in our cars now came for the tech in elite sports and space gear 20 years ago....so it would be an educated guess that they wont disclose the tech specifics of what they get for the money, as I can assure you, even if we get hand me down level new gear it will still be far better than joe bloggs can find in a store. Hence the seemingly inflated price. You dont buy a F1 car for the same money as a V8 HSV or FPV Typhoon. ...You can buy tracking point optics for sports gear or if you are smart make some, but do you think for a second the military has not considered this level of tech? And would they tell you if they did?

I think the gear is pretty good value. This tag will likely include spares, armoury and user training, ammunition,...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alonzo

Looks like the embers are settling in this thread.

Insert random inflammatory comment here.

---

Tonsillitis. Oh and here is another inflammatory comment just to rark them all up ...... Prostatitis ..... ( that one will stop them pissing on this parade). Ha ha ha ha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadgetman

I think the gear is pretty good value. This tag will likely include spares, armoury and user training, ammunition,...

---

and the 'military' inflation tax just like aviation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Konev

and the 'military' inflation tax just like aviation.

---

Very true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alonzo

Looks like the embers are settling in this thread.

Insert random inflammatory comment here.

And I’m pretty sure I had a relative in the Crimean war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Great grandfather served in the Boer War (2nd one) and Grandad in 3rd Division NZEF in the Pacific..does that count..?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=Kiwi Greg;646687] The M107-A1 is absolutely awesome to use & its bloody hard to argue with 10 x 50 cal rounds in the air before the first one gets there, but they are anti material, not anti personal. [/URL]

Ah, OK, here's was me getting worried about people owning such things. Stand down Mr Cahill, everything's OK!

[QUOTE=Cordite;647710]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

The M107-A1 is absolutely awesome to use & its bloody hard to argue with 10 x 50 cal rounds in the air before the first one gets there, but they are anti material, not anti personal. [/URL]

Ah, OK, here's was me getting worried about people owning such things. Stand down Mr Cahill, everything's OK!

---

Calm down Liberace, I'm sure Kiwi Greg means they are not as accurate as other "DANGEROUS SNIPER RIFLES..."
Cahill's objection makes no sense whatsoever and is purely emotion driven and designed to scare the general populace...

For Sarvo, the rifles wil be used in exactly as the old ones, (loners from other forces) have been used for, so no change there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walker

For Sarvo, the rifles wil be used in exactly as the old ones, (loners from other forces) have been used for, so no change there.

---

Again = missed Point
WHY ???

.

No point not missed, you must be an auntie Helen supporter who saddled the defense forces with ANTI CIVILIAN equipment, in case you've missed that point, ANTI CIVILIAN equipment. You may want to stick your head in the ground and ignore our international obligations and treaties but that has proven to be very unwise in the past.