Weapons & Ammunition











SPOL tarkamp


The Contenders








Meanwhile, in Finland

Source: EriKolaborator via Wikimedia Commons








11 thoughts on “Weapons & Ammunition

  1. In Afghanistan the Swedes used 5.56 NATO standard anno for AK5s. You mentioned it. I cannot say that I was present in the Swedish batallion in ”Affe” which is a nickname for Afghanistan. But from what I have seen on Swedish war documentaries and from what I have read, the Talibans used to shoot at the Swedish troops with either the larger caliber Kalashnikovs or machinegun from what they hoped to be a safe distance from our handheld guns. But since the distance was longer the accuracy of their Kalashnikovs were conciderably lower. That meant that the Swedish soldiers, who usually were vehicle mounted, could stop and get out if they were not already outside of their vehicles and with optics or ocularly assertain from where the shooter was localized, and respond with a vehicle mounted heavy machinegun. It sometimes happened that our soldiers found holes in their clothes after enemy fire and I guess it could happen that some of ours got hit by a bullet. But the Norwegians had a saying in Affe, ”God is a Swede”. Since we had so few casualties in the war. But I say as Clausewitz did, ”luck has only the skillful in the long run”.

    7.62 caliber rounds means that you can carry less rounds than you can with 5.56 caliber rounds.

    I am in no way advocating the smaller caliber but there is a reason why we switched to it.

  2. piggy backing on swedish order is a good idea in general
    logistics is half the battle

    but pragmatic finland could get access to tavor based personal service rifles and dm systems
    and the best light and medium machine guns on the planet (negev ng7 and ng5)

    after all the tavor has :
    the reliability of an ak
    the accuracy of an ar-15
    unmatched modularity
    a large government and private user base and accessory market
    and our prices are 15% cheaper on average then fnc and heckler

    our native sniper rifles are trash
    the idf uses french and american system and refusess iwi offers in that category

      1. are the himalayan mountain ranges in nepal and india cold and inhospitable enough for you ?

        indian sf uses the tavor as their main service system
        for some reason they favor the full size version over the new X95

        turkish sf is also a tavor user and their mountain ranges are brutal

      2. Sounds good enough for me, if they are as good as you say. Though these deals often involve political considerations. Usually when purchasing heavier systems at least, is my understanding. At least here in Europe. Unfortunately.

  3. Kristian Larsson

    You are probably correct with regards to 5.56 and 7.62 but several of the 6.8 calibers being tested primarily in the US are clearly superior to both. Especially to 7.62 as you get a weight reduction combined with better accuracy and hitting power at a distance. It would IMO be really interesting if e.g. the sniper and machinegun replacements were 6.8 instead of 7.62.

  4. Kirk

    Decide how you mean to fight; then determine what weapon suits that. Piggybacking on the Swedes would make sense, if you’re going to fight the same way they are. If not, it’s idiocy–No matter what logistics conveniences you might enable by doing so.

    Most military forces do this backwards–The design or buy a new weapon/system, then try to figure out how to use it effectively within their tactics and operational intents. This is not how a rational organization operates.

    Case history–Look to the Swiss. If you examine the StG57, you will note that it is basically an LMG/rifle hybrid, rather than a submachinegun/rifle hybrid like the AK47 or StG44. Why is that? What possessed the Swiss to call that thing a “Sturmgewehr”, and buy it?

    First, it was conceived and designed as the ideal rifle for the war the Swiss intended to fight: Abandon the populated lowlands, and withdraw into the mountains while keeping the enemy at arm’s reach and annihilating them at leisure with long-range fires. Thus, the StG57–A weapon optimized for long-range mountain warfare. Imagine being Soviet infantry, going unsupported up a Swiss valley lined with a battalion or so of infantry equipped with those things, and you’re carrying an AK-series rifle… Not something that’s conducive to confidence, at all–The Swiss would have turned most such attacks into charnel houses for the attackers. And, that’s what the weapon was designed to support–A near-perfect implementation of “design to suit tactics/operational intent”.

    Now, look at the StG90–It’s not just an updated rifle, it’s a reflection of the fact that the Swiss changed their operational intent from abandoning the lowlands to defending them, and the new rifle was reflective of that, optimized not for range in the mountains, but fighting in built-up areas and in conjunction with armored vehicles.

    You want to know what weapons to procure, examine how the Swiss made their determination, and then implement something similar. Issuing what the Swedes chose is a fool’s game, unless you intend to adopt the Swedish defense plan and rationale in its entirety. While there may be similarities and congruencies, the odds are that the Finns are not going to want to make the same choices the Swedes did–And, should emphatically not.

    Figure out how you intend to fight, procure to support same. Do not slavishly copy what the other idiots are doing, especially the US–Our small arms procurement process seems to be predicated upon the theory that God takes care of fools, drunkards, and the US soldier. Because there’s just no damn way you can even begin to ascribe anything that went into the success of the M16/M4 family to any form of planning or foresight–It’s all divine providence, all the way down.

    1. I agree. You have first got to know if you are defending an Island or a mainland for example. One of Sweden’s main defensive objectives is an island like Gotland in the middle of the Baltic Sea. The island has special constitutive natural environments. But we also need to contribute in the North and defend our south and protect the western port of Gothenburg. Of course we cannot do all those things today. But we should be able to.
      The finns need to defend their mainland and a few small islands in the bay of Finland.

      When it comes to America. Nobody can fight everybody at once. The Americans reshape their military or prioritize differently depending on who is the main enemy for the time being. In the 40-ies it was the Germans, in the double zeros it was al-Qaida and now it is China. They all require different priorities.

Leave a Reply to Roger Klang Cancel reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s
