Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I presume the exact workings of all three submissions for the US Army are confidential at present, but the main thing is all three pairing work. How they stand up to the trials, and the US Army has been historically pretty tough on firearms recently during these, is going to be interesting. I personally prefer the Sig Sauer submission from what I have seen so far.

Another interesting development has been the composite round for the good old M2 .50 cal which reduced the weight by I think 30% per round, which soon adds up.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tinman »

jimthelad wrote:The M4 is useless at ranges past 200m. Period. The Diameco C5/6/7 series are a bit better and have the option of fitting a longer barrel and the changeable barrel/ breach for 7.62x51. The advantage of lightness, commonality, and easier to clean are in the M4's favour but having used both and the C5, I still like the L85 for range and accuracy. This is personal choice but one bourn from experience. Cue angered rhetoric from the sandbox general. :roll:
I prefer it over the C8’s how ever nothing beats a collapsible stock G3 for sheer allyness.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The lightness (leaving aside the changeability of barrel, for a longer one that is) may be :?: the reason why the US has not had any of the silliness (with their SAW) of dropping MGs from section level
- just asking, difficult to keep up with all the changes (as to which are just suggested, and which are actually happening)

The original thought with the 'long barrel' bullpup was that it would be accurate as a rifle, do (all of them together) the job of the MG and for each individual do the job of any AR - albeit with the weight penalty.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The lightness (leaving aside the changeability of barrel, for a longer one that is) may be :?: the reason why the US has not had any of the silliness (with their SAW) of dropping MGs from section level.
Well except for the USMC who have switched to the HK 416 for assault, DMR and SAW... :D

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

The 416 has gone down like a whore in a convent. Complaints include: 'it ain't an M4', tolerances too tight for dusty conditions, poor stability for the 203 mount, and excessive barrel heating with the suppressor. Never fired it so have no skin in the game but the same team also designed the G36 which was dropped by SO19 to re-equip with the 416, and now is seriously looking at the Tavour and the new US offerings in 6.8.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

That is interesting. I suppose those who complain it isn't an M4 may have a bias against anything that isn't. The issues with greater tolerances and heat are surprising. With the latter, one of the things the gas system on the 416 was greatly reduce the heat build up, especially with regards to the barrel compared to the M4. There are many videos out there showing the difference between the two. showing how hot an M4 barrel gets compared to the 416.

A suppressor should really not make that much difference unless the weapon is being repeatedly fired on full auto, unless the suppressor being used is an older type that restricts the gas flow causing these to back up in the barrel which also hot causes particles to be ejected into the firers face. Modern suppressors solve this issue.

I cannot understand the 203 issues, though this is being replaced anyway due to its inability to fire longer grenades due to its loading mechanism. Modern launchers seem quite fine being attached via Picatinny rails to not just the 416 so I feel the problem is with the 203 rather then the 416.

S)19 looking at the Tavor may be due t its incredible compactness, especially the Micro version that the Israeli SF use. As for a weapon in 6.8mm, that could be for all the reasons the US Military are looking at the new calibre compared to 5.56mm and why US SF like the 6.5mm over the latter as well.

The M4 is light and cheap as chips but alternatives based on that weapon, like those manufactured in Canada and of course Germany are far better combat weapons, shoot better and are more reliable. But as I said at the beginning, some believe the M4 is God's own rifle and nothing else will do, regardless of what testing and trials show.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I really need to spell check and read through my longer posts before hitting the submit button!!! :oops:

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by SKB »

Lord Jim wrote:I really need to spell check and read through my longer posts before hitting the submit button!!! :oops:
You can still edit your posts after submitting them. Click the Edit Post button on any of your own past posts.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Hence the need to read first :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I take the view that quantity has a certain quality of its own :angel:
... and never look back
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

But was the cat black or white?1

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I am getting confused :? again!!!

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

Somebody has lost their little red book :roll:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Black and white ( at the analysis stage) often produces "red" for the decision
- the more common :lol: practice of green-amber-red much recommended; even for such issues that might not produce a man-portable result
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

OldSchool
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 12 Dec 2020, 06:17
Australia

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by OldSchool »

I somtimes wonder why we didnt try for a UK redesign of the AK47 ( improved accuraccy etc). An old workhorse and totally reliable. Not sure how effective the round is....

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Of the countries in the West, Israel has Galil (comes also with the NATO 5.56 option) and Finland has their Mk62 (for the ISD, ten years before Galil), which just like our work horse is into its 3rd refresher round already
- can't find the production numbers for Galil (in use or has been used in 25 countries), but the Finnish one has been made in about 350.000 copies
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

When people ask why didn't we just use this rifle or that rifle (instead of the SA80) it always makes me wonder why the FN FNC never gets mentioned...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Little J wrote:wonder why the FN FNC never gets mentioned...
Well it beat Galil (where we started from; how to make a better AK47)
and many more, to become the std Swedish weapon; from Wiki

"From 1975 the FMV evaluated and tested the Colt M16A1, Stoner 63A1, ArmaLite AR-18, Steyr AUG, Beretta M70, IMI Galil, FN FNC, FN CAL, SIG 540, HK33 and FFV 890C (a Swedish Galil variant) 5.56×45mm NATO assault rifles. The FN FNC and FFV 890C were tested in 1979-1980 at infantry regiment I11 in Växjö.

After further testing from 1981-1985 the FMV eventually chose the Belgian FN FNC, which received several modifications."[ like Colt grenade launcher fitting etc.]
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

If we had been able to adopt the EM2 we would have been in a far better situation decades previously. It used an intermediate round which id basically what the US Army is discovering now, in a very small compact package that was reliable. Instead we ended up with a accurate rifle that has probably the worst build quality of any rifle adopted, built as cheaply as possible. It has taken the Germans to fix it but it is now probably one of the best rifles available except for weight, and it is certainly one of the most accurate 5.56mm.

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:it is certainly one of the most accurate 5.56mm
Maybe as a service rifle, but I should think that most of the the AR-15s in civilian competitions will knock it for six.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

mr.fred wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:it is certainly one of the most accurate 5.56mm
Maybe as a service rifle, but I should think that most of the the AR-15s in civilian competitions will knock it for six.
Never in a month of Sundays . The new free floating barrel and Acog sights give it a much better grouping. Also, the bullpup design means the trigger is in front of the bolt and chamber which means you don't get vibration from the bolt closing. Also the AR15 has a muzzle climb like a bitch which means the 3rd round always goes low as you try to regain the sight picture .

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote:Never in a month of Sundays . The new free floating barrel and Acog sights give it a much better grouping. Also, the bullpup design means the trigger is in front of the bolt and chamber which means you don't get vibration from the bolt closing. Also the AR15 has a muzzle climb like a bitch which means the 3rd round always goes low as you try to regain the sight picture .
You think that a military issue rifle is going to be better than a competition-fettled rifle? I don’t think that’s likely.

Plus for accuracy you aren’t going to be firing in full auto, so that point is moot. As the AR15 is a straight line, conventionally laid out rifle (i.e. weight forward) I doubt that muzzle climb is that problematic.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

We are not talking about sports rifles (or at least I'm not). Any competition rifle will be better set up than an AR. That said, once you have jumped out of a plane, had a rough landing, dumped a mag going to cover, and rammed home a second with half a sand pit accompanying it ,I would imagine the gucci kit will be buggered. My target rifle was a Ruger .223 with hand turned rounds, a double spring bolt, and a copper lined breech collimator. That could do 6" out to 800m. Would have I taken it into a firefight, no!!

As for breech vibration in firing, all battle rifles are semi or fully automatic. As the breech closed in a standard rifle, the vibration over the trigger assembly causes a natural wobble. If you watch serious marksmen (military), they will tighten the grip to compensate before relaxing to fire (in semi auto). Bullpup designs generally have the trigger forward of the breech do they don't suffer from this vibration. Also, even in semi-auto the muzzle climb means that any subsequent rounds require sight picture re-alingment. This is especially true if you are using optics rather than prismatic or open iron sights. Actually, it is easier in auto because the operator has a tendency to put downward pressure on the foregrip to compensate; also usually the rifle will move to produce a fire pattern; this requires a traverse and therefore better foregrip pressure.

As for muzzle climb, the AR and Colt M4 are second only to the AK and FN-Mag series. The original long barrel M16 had better balance and much better muzzle velocity, therefore cycling the gas piston quicker. This was dropped for ergonomics, weight, and operator preference. As for accurate battlefield weapons, the L86-A2 with the plasmag, well greased bolt assembly, and manually loaded with the gas block set to off will trounce anything out there. Even average marksmen can give accurate (ie in the centremass) fire at 700m. The only thing that will come close is the Finnish version of the AKM or the FN-SCAR in 6.8 with the long barrel (the latter costing about $25000 a copy).

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote:We are not talking about sports rifles (or at least I'm not).
Why not? I was, although I was talking about competition tuned ARs rather than bolt action target rifles. These rifles are functionally AR15s, just higher quality components or fettled to fit or both. In terms of ruggedness they’ll be as good as or better than a standard issue military rifle.

There are a number of marksmen’s rifles and sniper’s rifles based on the AR platform as well, both in 5.56mm and 7.62mm. Hardly a choice you’d make if they were deficient in terms of accuracy or reliability.

The original comment that I took issue with was that the L85 was the most accurate 5.56mm. I don’t think that is true.

.
jimthelad wrote:As for muzzle climb, the AR and Colt M4 are second only to the AK and FN-Mag series.
Mechanically, that makes no sense. The AR arrangement places the recoil in a straight line along the the rifle into the stock and into the shoulder. There is little to no misalignment to generate a torque from the recoil force compared to the AK series or the FN FAL where the stock is below the line of the barrel. Not to mention that both of those are firing higher impulse rounds*.
Now the L85 might handle the recoil better, being of similar straight line arrangement and somewhat heavier, but yours is the first testimony I have ever heard that describes the recoil characteristics of the AR family as bad.

*Much higher, in the case of the FAL.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: was talking about competition tuned ARs rather than bolt action target rifles. These rifles are functionally AR15s, just higher quality components or fettled to fit or both.
Similarly,
" Sweden that took back the Ak4 (Heckler & Koch G3) and upgraded it with newly developed Spuhr parts and an old riflescope from Hensoldt."

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... er-rifles/ article then goes on to take a wide sweep of the going ons when accuracy is priced, but bolt action for its limitations in more intense situations is to be avoided:
"Sweden is also evaluating multi-caliber sniper rifles (bolt-action) at the moment: New Multi-Caliber Sniper Weapon System for Swedish Armed Forces.

The French Army recently decided to buy SCAR-H PRs: French Army Selects SCAR-H PR, S&B Scope and Night/Thermal Vision for Sniper Rifle. The German Army is using Heckler & Koch HK417s.

The Canadian Army just decided to buy Colt Canada’s C20, and the Danish Army is probably going a similar route.

The Dutch Army is also looking for a Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR), with the odd fact that the rifle should be capable of using 260 Remington ammunition (6.5 x 51 mm).

It would seem that the idea of the semi-automatic precision rifle is far from dead."

May be (the bolded) not so odd after all, if one looks at e.g. this article

260 Remington Beats 308 Winchester? Maybe — Ron ...
http://www.ronspomeroutdoors.com › blog › 260-remington-...
which concludes that with the 260 Remington having the same case capacity as the 308 and thus with only so much powder space, the lighter bullet is going to be driven faster and that always improves ballistic performance.

So, the Dutch are going for perfection,
whereas Sako (Beretta Group) already have the two rifles -which the linked article really is about - for two different uses (and an army to pay for getting them into service) and have settled for a widely used round that might lose some (BC) at longer ranges, but is good enough and has more impact energy at shorter ranges (where suppressing fire from box-std ARs will be part of the picture)
... how else will you ever get something that as a rifle/ its parts is closely similar and is meant to fit both the DMR and sniper 'bills'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply