QUICK POLL...THE WORST INFANTRY WEAPONS OF THE SA BORDER WAR?

[Paul]

The incident Paul mentions is probably what caused 'the powers that be' to spot weld all the trigger guards in the normal position (not folded/foldable) seeing that the chances of our usage in frigid conditions were slim. Happily mine is not welded.
In many ways the M79 is like the RPG - almost idiot/troop proof.

On the same ops... the runup to Ops Meebos... we were lazing in our scrapes to the side of the parking lot at Ondjiva airport when Juliet Hotel insisted on reviewing his paratroops with a full morning parade and weapon inspection...

First morning... "Ontlaai!", "Vir inspeksie, hou geweer!", "Werkende gedeeltes vorentoe!", "Laai!" *BANG* "KOM HIIEEEERRR JOU ETTER!"

Second morning... "Ontlaai!", "Vir inspeksie, hou geweer!", "Werkende gedeeltes vorentoe!", "Laai!" *BANG* "MEDIC!!!!!"

And that's how the SADF discovered that the R4 with a free-floating firing pin was a bad idea.

[Vaal]

I hated the R4 during basics, we had to do pushups with both hands to the left of the rifle, push up and over the stock of the rifle standing on its bipod. But when you get tired, your timing goes out and you straddle the stock and it hits you in the chest and face on the way down. It becomes a bit uncomfortable.

[Epsilon]

Thirty-something years ago I suffered a G3 during basics with SAAF. Today a mate and myself went to the range. He brought his G3 along. It is quite a nice rifle, but I had enough of dragging one around all those years ago!

[A-R]

[QUOTE=Paul;1404081]

...
As company recce for my company at Infantry School during Ops Protea I had carried a snotneus, so I knew it well. A great little section support weapon.

The weird thing is that the snotneus was introduced at the same time as the R4. The reason South Africa elected to equip every troop with an R4 instead of an R5 was that the R5 couldn't accommodate a rifle grenade on the short barrel. Snotneus made rifle grenades absolutely redundant.

At least the troops could deploy the bipod on the R4 and sit on the gun whilst they brewed coffee after having to carry the unnecessarily clumsy and heavy R4.

I would agree with the clumsiness of the R4, but that depends a lot on the role it was deployed in. In a conventional setting, and remember that the SADF was envisaging and preparing for conventional operations during the latter part of the 80's and onward, it could replace the LMG if needed. We did this in training, forced to by a lack of 7,62 belted ammo, by borrowing some extra 35 round mags and the section support (LMG) group using 2 R4's. One would fire bursts (prone, from bipod) while the other changed mags. When empty, they other one fired again. That way they could sustain automatic support fire for quite a while. The R4 took this in it's stride with minimal complaints. We had hand guards melt off, but they were just pushed back on and left to cool again. This was pretty effective on the target area, but the sound of the R4 did not cause the same adrenaline dump as a MAG at full song did.

Then there was the issues with the 40mm HE ammo then used in the MGL (6-shot "snotneus" grenade launcher). We had only about 50% detonating, the rest lying around in the training area awaiting a unsuspecting target. Lots of guys had shrapnel wounds as a result and clearing them all up was a major operation, for which the logistics and manpower were never made available.
There was also an incident in 1990 at Inf School, where a trooper (forgot his name) vanished in training after the first round out of his MGL detonated in the barrel, setting off the other 5 in the cylinder and another 12 in his webbing. Only the soles of his boots were left. So the snotneus was not liked much and rifle grenades were preferred. The RG791 (M26 with rifle launch tube-detonator added) was pretty efficient and very comfortable to fire from the shoulder. The ballistite launching cartridge just made my R4 choke on normal ammo for 3 shots, then it ran smoothly again.

[pcc]

In Marines (1980) we had the FN in basics. By the time I had finished my National Service, I had also shot the G3, R1 and R4 family, so I think I am able to compare. I have also since shot the AK and M16families. Loved my G3 and shot best with it, particularly snapshooting over the 100m open sight. Once the furniture was upgraded by SA, it was a solid weapon. All the above are good weapons. Look after it and it will look after you. The SA G3's were bought direct from Portugal in the early 70's. It is said that the Portuguese G3 (Espingarda m/961) were to some extent, better manufactured than original H&K ones, so much so that Germany imported 50.000 from Portugal. Although the SADF did not include G3's when doing evaluations that led to the adoption of the FN/R1, it is interesting that Portugal did their G3 evaluation in Angola. The 100.000 G3's that SA bought were brand new. So the stories of an arms shipment "hi-jacked" or as we heard" captured in an Angolan port" are a little far fetched. In the 70's, some were supplied to Rhodesia. In SA, the Airforce, Marines, Coloured Corps, SWATF used them. Spec Forces used them as well. Comparing the G3 to either the R1 or R4 is difficult. Remember we are talking battle rifles compared to assault rifles. The difference in calibre is immediately evident and has been debated ad nauseum. The G3 use of stampings with few machined parts, harks back to rifle development by the Germans in the latter part of WW2. The development of the G3 from the Mauser Gerät03, through the CETME is also well documented. To see the stamping process that ends in a G3 receiver is interesting inbeing so different to the forgings and machining that ends up as anR1/R4 receiver. Also, remember the difference in the operating systems of the mentioned rifles. So to compare them side by side is a bit difficult. I suppose it all comes down to the user preference. When we were issued with our G3's, none of our instructors had seen them before and the story started that they were a type of AK. I was lucky in that I had previously shot an HK33 5.56. I could strip and assemble and had a little knowledge of their history. The G3a3 we had were fitted with the original slim handguard and butt. Despite having a metal heat shield fitted in the handguard, it got HOT when doing fire and movement. One guy packed the fore-end with 2X4's to protect his hand from the heat. They actually started smouldering. Later on during camps, I carried the ones with the heavier locally produced stock and handguard. Of all the rifles I carried, the G3 was the hardest to clean (no dust cover), but on the plus side, no gas piston and gas tube. The trigger mechanism was a breeze to clean. I preferred the sights on the G3 and shot my best with it. Oh and we had the crappy aluminium mags. Three issued with each new rifle. Initially designed to be disposable, we used them over and over, till we had feeding problems. Of all the original battle rifles, the H&KG3 is the only one still in general issue in a major country.

[AK-Gunner]

Very impressive.

We used have quite a lot of these issued for the FDF ground troops. The weapon itself is quite durable and dependable but the problem was lurking within the ammunition: its internal safeties were designed in the Soviet Union, a country not known for their interest of the well being of their own troops, for which reason the 30 mm grenade was designed to explode by impact only after 10 meters flight time. In 2001 during a refreshment training one reservist of a team of four plus one operating the weapon was killed by a fragment hitting his head after a grenade hit a tree 15 meters from the firing position. The other four people were hit by the fragments which were stopped by their flak vests and clothing and they didn't suffer any damage.

Deemed unsafe to the user, the weapon system was removed from training and it was finally replaced by HK GMG in 2005.

[Bundu Dave]

I carried both the Bren and MAG on ops in Rhodesia and while the mags on the Bren were a bit of a pain I found the sights good and it was a pretty accurate weapon although still prefer the MAG as belts could be distributed among the stick which lightened the load a bit.As far as the R1/R4 rifles went have used both and still prefer the R1 762x51 round for bush use as the knockdown was far more efficient .

[Johann du Toit]

I carried both the Bren and MAG on ops in Rhodesia and while the mags on the Bren were a bit of a pain I found the sights good and it was a pretty accurate weapon although still prefer the MAG as belts could be distributed among the stick which lightened the load a bit.As far as the R1/R4 rifles went have used both and still prefer the R1 762x51 round for bush use as the knockdown was far more efficient .

I heard it is almost impossible to fire the R1/FN FAL controllably on full auto. As a veteran, can you confirm whether or not this is true?
Also, did you have problem with reloading the BREN in the field?

[Bundu Dave]

It was only controllable in very short bursts ,however there was a Rhodie built attachment called a Halbek device which clipped over the flash hider that did mitigate the muzzle lift quite well . I had managed to scrounge a stripper clip attachment that slipped over the mouth of the magazine and would make sure I got issued the bandolier packed extra ammo which came in stripper clips .I also carried 6mags with a 7th on the Bren. This was mostly enough for a scene/contact .

[Shigawagga]

I heard it is almost impossible to fire the R1/FN FAL controllably on full auto.?

Controllable shooting is possible out of the hip with hand on top of the front hand guard. Obviously no accuracy in this shooting position. Biggest problem was mag capacity with the right gas setting, the R1 can empty a 20-round magazine in less than 2 seconds.