Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tinman »

downsizer wrote:Why would you think I was referring to you princess, inferiority complex? :o

Shhhhhh he carried the SLR on Op Banner. The hero.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

marktigger wrote: its export failure is a verdict that speaks volumes we've only managed to give them away as aid. If it was as good as all the hype the world would have been beating its way to the UK's door to buy it.
If the A1 was built to A2 standards I think there would have been a few more genuine sales (not state aid)- maybe not by much, but a few.
marktigger wrote: It's not on the NATO approved list either (it was removed after the A2 update). Given the choice it would appear people choose other things.
I thought the A1 was removed and the A2 restored its place later?


** For full disclosure I've never even held a member of the SA80 family... Nor would I try to bulls**t people into thinking that I had.
But for some unknown reason I still have a soft spot for that over weight, ugly piece of bad ergo design :D

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tony Williams »

I had the opportunity to handle and shoot both old and new versions of the Steyr AUG in Austria last week, and was very impressed. It is still an astonishingly advanced design even at 40 years old, and a pleasure to carry and shoot. It was light years ahead of the L85A1, and I do wish that the British Army faction that wanted to adopt it in the 1980s had been listened to, but nationalism prevailed (never a good idea for British automatic small arms, the good ones we've used have almost all been imported).

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

Tony Williams wrote:I had the opportunity to handle and shoot both old and new versions of the Steyr AUG in Austria last week, and was very impressed. It is still an astonishingly advanced design even at 40 years old, and a pleasure to carry and shoot. It was light years ahead of the L85A1, and I do wish that the British Army faction that wanted to adopt it in the 1980s had been listened to, but nationalism prevailed (never a good idea for British automatic small arms, the good ones we've used have almost all been imported).
Tony, it gets even worse when you think that both projects started around the same time (mid 60's), we could have joined together and had something that wasn't laughed at.

Did you try the new Aussie version, the EF88 / F90?

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tony Williams »

Little J wrote: Did you try the new Aussie version, the EF88 / F90?
No, it wasn't available.

I'm not sure that British involvement in the development of the AUG would have made it better..... the design was obviously the result of some very clear and logical thinking.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by arfah »

............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

There's also AEI Systems: http://aei-systems.com
and Accuracy International: http://www.accuracyinternational.com

and plenty of small bespoke gunmakers.
Not sure if any could tool up to equip the Army, although with the size of the army, would they have to?

I'd like to look at licensing or buying the Polish MSBS

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

arfah wrote:One day, there will be a time when the L85 (SA80) will be replaced.

BAE Systems doesn't have a small arms manufacturing capability anymore, so are there any other UK companies with the experience and tooling necessary to do so?

Owned by FN Herstal, Manroy Engineering makes licensed versions of the FN MAG58 (L7 GPMG), M2HB Browning .50cal HMG and 20mm Hispano-Suiza belt fed cannon.

http://www.manroy.com/products-capabilities.html
yeap its going to be interesting to see what way it goes the timeframe means many of the current generation of smallarms will be being replaced by their manufacturers.

HK417 would be interesting

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

marktigger wrote: HK417 would be interesting
Might I enquire as to why the HK417 would be interesting?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

The Bushmaster / Remington ACR could be a good option... OK stop laughing.

Think about it, they've done fook all with it since launch, the basic design isn't bad (needs a few tweaks here and there).
Cerberus would bite the MoD's hand off to get money back on their investment.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by arfah »

..............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

arfah wrote:
mr.fred wrote:...
could A.I. handle the volume as their sniper rifles are hand built?

Same goes for "Small and Bespoke" companies.

A new order for a modern rifle could be as high as 200,000 units, assuming current personnel strength remains constant...
Probably not, but neither could anyone else without retooling.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tinman »

mr.fred wrote:
marktigger wrote: HK417 would be interesting
Might I enquire as to why the HK417 would be interesting?

It's not.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tony Williams »

The BA will want an off-the-shelf purchase, preferably already in service or at least ordered by a big user.

There is no company in the UK currently set up to churn out automatic rifles at a high rate, and there really would be no point in creating one. It would involve acquiring a factory and loads of machine tools, recruiting and training the workforce, all to get rid of the lot once production has finished after two or three years.

Making anything in the UK only makes sense if there is a continuing demand which will keep the factory open. Otherwise, it is vastly cheaper just to buy from an existing production line wherever that may be.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by arfah »

............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tony Williams »

arfah wrote:Well, in that case it's Lewis Machine Tools M4/M16 derivative for me.
There would be some logic to that, in that the design, handling etc would be a close match for the LMT 7.62mm L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle already in service, thereby simplifying training. Although I'd like to see more L129A1 bought as well, to provide one 7.62mm rifle for every two 5.56mm. Until such time as a intermediate calibre cartridge to replace both is adopted (I'm not holding my breath) that would be as good a combo as any currently available.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

why not just go back to 7.62mmx51?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tinman »

marktigger wrote:why not just go back to 7.62mmx51?

Weight, I would imagine. Like afrah has suggested LMT are replacing the kiwis weapons.

I've used the 7.62mm version and have to say I was impressed. More so than the H&K417.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

but having sections with 50% carrying 5.56mm and 50% carrying 7.62 causes serious logistics problems and interoperability problems when you are aren't operating from a fixed base. having a single type of ammunition means redistribution of ammunition is simpler.

Yes the LMT versions are good but and it's the big but could they produce the volumes of weapons needed to supply the British armed forces and maintain the quality? there is a fairly big difference in the size of the NZDF and the British armed forces? which is why companies like H&K are better placed to supply those contracts. Except of course you wan the British tax payer to fund a large expansion of an American company?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

marktigger wrote:but having sections with 50% carrying 5.56mm and 50% carrying 7.62 causes serious logistics problems and interoperability problems when you are aren't operating from a fixed base. having a single type of ammunition means redistribution of ammunition is simpler.
Maybe this is where the Desert-Tech MDR will have an advantage, being designed for 762 but with a 556 kit (among others). Are there any MG's that can do the same?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

Little J wrote:
Maybe this is where the Desert-Tech MDR will have an advantage, being designed for 762 but with a 556 kit (among others). Are there any MG's that can do the same?
would you want to be carrying the conversion kit on your webbing all the time you were in the field? And having to convert your rifle in the field?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

No, the idea is that if your in say, a built up area (short engagement) before deployment your issued a 556 version. If your deployed to Afghan type terrain, before deployment, the same weapon is configured to 762.

Same with barrel lengths.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

Little J wrote:No, the idea is that if your in say, a built up area (short engagement) before deployment your issued a 556 version. If your deployed to Afghan type terrain, before deployment, the same weapon is configured to 762.

Same with barrel lengths.
but if you are talking about mixing calibers at section level you will need to have the capability much further forward.

one of the arguments for the LSW as a support weapon :lol: was its ammunition was same and in the same magazines as the SA90's as opposed to having magazines for the SLR and Belts for the GPMG. Funny when away from exercise and the school of infantry on OPs suddenly the Belt fed LMG or having the GPMG back in the section became such a great concept!

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Little J wrote:Maybe this is where the Desert-Tech MDR will have an advantage, being designed for 762 but with a 556 kit (among others). Are there any MG's that can do the same?
The latest marks of the Minimi can be converted from 5.56mm to 7.62mm.
It does raise the possibility of buying a weapon in NATO standard but being able to run experiments with alternative calibres like Tony Williams' (and others') General Purpose Cartridge. If you an run with 7.62mm and 5.56mm then you can run most things in-between.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tony Williams »

marktigger wrote:but having sections with 50% carrying 5.56mm and 50% carrying 7.62 causes serious logistics problems and interoperability problems when you are aren't operating from a fixed base. having a single type of ammunition means redistribution of ammunition is simpler.
I agree entirely, which is one reason why I've always been in favour of an intermediate calibre round to replace both 8-)

Post Reply