Section Infantry Weapons

[jimthelad]

Fire both and then we'll chat. If you look on YouTube you can see numerous examples of what I'm saying. The sport rifles you describe all have longer barrels, different gas piston sets, and more compliant spring systems than the standard M4. The spring force on the breech causes significant wobble which is why you see tightening of the grip (again look at YouTube). With the bull pup it is closer to the shoulder and therefore attenuated.

I reckon that if you rechambered the L85 in 6.8mm with the same barrel length, different (stiffer) recoil springs, same free floating barrel arrangement, and a graduated feed gas block and piston it would thrash anything. Won't happen sadly.

[mr.fred]

Fire both and then we'll chat.

Is that necessary? I would have thought the dispersion values for both would answer the question quite definitively.
An idle check suggests that US shooters can get 1MOA out of AR15 based rifles. I couldn’t find anything definitive for the L85, but an issue rifle is likely to be more than 1 MOA

[Lord Jim]

The fact that I started my post referring to the EM2 and ended with the L85A3 should have made it obvious that my end remark was referring to 5.56mm Service Rifles. Although a Thread title has never stopped anyone from going off topic during discussions, as this is called "Section Infantry Weapons" should again have provided a few hints.

It is the accuracy of the L85A3 out to and beyond 600m that has meant that the British Army is happy to use both it and the L129A1 to provide accurate suppressive fire and remove the L110A1-A3 from service as it couldn't provide accurate fire beyond 300m. The M4 and its other Short barrelled AR relatives cannot come close to the L85A3s accuracy.

As I said the L85A3s downfall in the eyes of some is its weight which makes some units prefer to use lighter weapons like the Canadian C8/L119A1 Carbine, which is in itself a superior M4. The other reason this weapon was selected was that the units adopting it were usually engaged in CQB rather than ranged combat.

[ArmChairCivvy]

and beyond 600m

this keeps being repeated, but
1. while I have no problem that as for accuracy the L85A3 is in the top group (others have been mentioned above) of ARs,
2. I would like to see some proof.

It was exactly for the reason that standard issue 5.56mm weapons (L85A2 rifle, L86A2 LSW, FN Minimi LMG) at the time* used by British troops are mostly ineffective at ranges over 500 m
- note: ineffective is a composite, to which accuracy is a major contributor
and hence a 2009* UOR competition from which the L129A1 rifle emerged as the winner was launched. Available information from use (not just from tests during that competition... competition rifles and all that) suggests that the rifle can deliver such MOA accuracy under field conditions as making it capable of routinely hitting man-sized targets at ranges up to 800 meters.
- as for that 800 range, 2009 Urgent Operational Requirement assumed use of the standard 7.62 x 51 L2A2 ball ammunition produced in the UK at Royal Ordnance Factory Radway Green (RG). You can of course go fancy-pancy with grains (match ammo), but in a tight spot being able to delink 'more ammo' from a MG belt could be well appreciated.

Now, you may expect to meet opponents wearing body armour of modern std, and hence a projectile with a mild steel penetrator core (similar to the 5.56 x 45 mm SS109), but with ballistics still matching the std ball has been developed to allow for the intended effect at range... coming back full circle to the measure of effectiveness/ineffectiveness at range

[Lord Jim]

The current 5.56mm Ball ammunition used by the British Army, the L31A1, greatly increases its lethality at longer ranges but is different from what the US are using, the M855A1 EPR. However its terminal performance has been said to be equal to standard NATO 7.62 at ranges up to 600m. The other big change has been to universal adoption of optics, Elcan Spectre OS4x in UK service, meaning service rifles are now able to shot far more accurately at longer ranges and the limiting factor is now the individual soldiers marksmanship, something the British Army excels at.

Put all this together and you have the reasoning the British Army is convinced it can use accurate suppressive fire from the L85A3 supplemented by precision fore form the Section's L129A1 effectively negating the need for a 5.56mm LMG.

Interestingly there have been discussions regarding the removal of the L129A1 from Armoured Infantry units with its role being taken over by the co-axial 7.62mm MG in the Warriors turret. IF this was actually adopted then the same would apply to the planned Mechanised Infantry units mounted in the Boxer 8x8.

As for my original point regarding the superior accuracy of the L85A3, in head to head trials it beat the M4 hands down in all categories having better accuracy, penetration, better resilience to harsh conditions found in both desert and jungle and has a very low rate of stoppages.

The main reason for the UK's SF and other specialist units moving to the L119A2 is that this weapon is ambidextrous, and also can reliably cycle specialist fragmentation and Simunition training ammunition, reducing the risk of ricochet and limiting collateral damage. The fact that the weapons are lighter then the L85A3 is also a bonus.

It has only taken until 2018 for the SA80 to finally reach its full potential, lessons to be learned I am sure.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good discussion, so don't take my objections as being negative

Elcan Spectre OS4x in UK service, meaning service rifles are now able to shot far more accurately at longer ranges and the limiting factor is now the individual soldiers marksmanship

I have overlooked this and was still thinking in the 'early A-stan' terms of any such only being distributed to those most in need.

use accurate suppressive fire from the L85A3 supplemented by precision fore form the Section's L129A1 effectively negating the need for a 5.56mm LMG.

Quite a reversal from the days when MG was the one suppressing and pinning down, so that pairs of the squad (or squaddies of a platoon engaging) could do the fire& move and have aimed shots once well positioned?
- MG's role aside, and as for "precision fore form the Section's L129A1" I would re-phrase that as its sweet spot being 300-500 m ranges when the ARs start to fade in effect (in more than one way) and the semi-auto allowing accurate follow-in shots
- in want of any supporting links I discount your 600 m, which gives further value to the fact that L129A1 is effective all the way out to 800m and is always organic to the section. So organic and valuable that some armies train 3 of the 8 in the section in its use so that one casualty does not remove that extended reach (though only one such weapon is carried)

IF this was actually adopted then the same would apply to the planned Mechanised Infantry units mounted in the Boxer 8x8.

I agree with the Warrior prospect, but Boxers will be closer to an APC-like battlefield taxi and the dismounts team (= section) will easily spend more time and further away from their vehicle
... so guess what : I disagree

in head to head trials it beat the M4 hands down in all categories having better accuracy

- source?

penetration

- ibid

[Lord Jim]

- source?

For Starters.
Infantry Small Arms of the 21st Century - Guns of the World's Armies, Leigh Neville, ISBN 978-1-47389-613-0.

[Tinman]

A good discussion, so don't take my objections as being negative

Elcan Spectre OS4x in UK service, meaning service rifles are now able to shot far more accurately at longer ranges and the limiting factor is now the individual soldiers marksmanship

I have overlooked this and was still thinking in the 'early A-stan' terms of any such only being distributed to those most in need.

use accurate suppressive fire from the L85A3 supplemented by precision fore form the Section's L129A1 effectively negating the need for a 5.56mm LMG.

Quite a reversal from the days when MG was the one suppressing and pinning down, so that pairs of the squad (or squaddies of a platoon engaging) could do the fire& move and have aimed shots once well positioned?
- MG's role aside, and as for "precision fore form the Section's L129A1" I would re-phrase that as its sweet spot being 300-500 m ranges when the ARs start to fade in effect (in more than one way) and the semi-auto allowing accurate follow-in shots
- in want of any supporting links I discount your 600 m, which gives further value to the fact that L129A1 is effective all the way out to 800m and is always organic to the section. So organic and valuable that some armies train 3 of the 8 in the section in its use so that one casualty does not remove that extended reach (though only one such weapon is carried)

IF this was actually adopted then the same would apply to the planned Mechanised Infantry units mounted in the Boxer 8x8.

I agree with the Warrior prospect, but Boxers will be closer to an APC-like battlefield taxi and the dismounts team (= section) will easily spend more time and further away from their vehicle
... so guess what : I disagree

in head to head trials it beat the M4 hands down in all categories having better accuracy

- source?

penetration

- ibid

Fan Bois of the M4, and a belt fed 5.56mm neglect to realise the end users would rather not have those. You have the GPMG, you really don’t need a 5.56mm automatic light machine gun to turn rounds into noise.

What’s your experience of either, any firearm?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Agree, and think the question was directed at LJ?
- would be more than happy to answer on my part

[Lord Jim]

... so guess what : I disagree

I agree with your disagreement, but I have a feeling the Powers that Be will not see the difference between a Warrior or a Boxer providing fire support with their machine guns.

Speaking of which, we do need to look at a lighter sustained fire weapon to eventually replace the good old L7A2. We have a watching brief on the US Army's small arms programmes so any replacement will probably be affected by that and also whether NATO follows the US lead, which could be problematic given that a number of NATO members have only recently adopted new 5.56mm weapons. Mind you even if we stuck with both 5.56mm and 7.62mm, new ammunition and new lighter weapons give us plenty of options in both calibres.

[mr.fred]

Speaking of which, we do need to look at a lighter sustained fire weapon to eventually replace the good old L7A2.

Do we? Why?

[Little J]

Some thing like this?
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... hine-guns/

[Tinman]

The current 5.56mm Ball ammunition used by the British Army, the L31A1, greatly increases its lethality at longer ranges but is different from what the US are using, the M855A1 EPR. However its terminal performance has been said to be equal to standard NATO 7.62 at ranges up to 600m. The other big change has been to universal adoption of optics, Elcan Spectre OS4x in UK service, meaning service rifles are now able to shot far more accurately at longer ranges and the limiting factor is now the individual soldiers marksmanship, something the British Army excels at.

Put all this together and you have the reasoning the British Army is convinced it can use accurate suppressive fire from the L85A3 supplemented by precision fore form the Section's L129A1 effectively negating the need for a 5.56mm LMG.

Interestingly there have been discussions regarding the removal of the L129A1 from Armoured Infantry units with its role being taken over by the co-axial 7.62mm MG in the Warriors turret. IF this was actually adopted then the same would apply to the planned Mechanised Infantry units mounted in the Boxer 8x8.

As for my original point regarding the superior accuracy of the L85A3, in head to head trials it beat the M4 hands down in all categories having better accuracy, penetration, better resilience to harsh conditions found in both desert and jungle and has a very low rate of stoppages.

The main reason for the UK's SF and other specialist units moving to the L119A2 is that this weapon is ambidextrous, and also can reliably cycle specialist fragmentation and Simunition training ammunition, reducing the risk of ricochet and limiting collateral damage. The fact that the weapons are lighter then the L85A3 is also a bonus.

It has only taken until 2018 for the SA80 to finally reach its full potential, lessons to be learned I am sure.

The main reason for SF to use dissimilar weapons is that the main user of the L85a3 is that it is a identifier of the user.

Being the sole major user of the L85a2/3 it makes them very easy to identify.

The L7 will be around for a very long time, we may follow the USA for future small arms, however we picked the Glock over the SiG.

[Lord Jim]

Other specialist units are also starting to use the L119A2 is for its greater utility in CQB condition, such as being ambidextrous, but I get your point regarding SF.

The L7 is still a bloody good weapon, shame it took the US so long to realise. Its only real downside is weight, and going down the "Titanium Gun", modification route like the US did in a limited way if not financially viable. It also seems that LMG designs brought up to 7.62mm NATO do not seem to match the L7s performance as far as the UK is concerned even though the Minimi Mk3 is in service with the US military and others like the Negev seem to satisfy their users.

We will probably keep using the L7A2 until something comes along that really changes things. The GPMG being developed in the US using a .308 Magnum cartridge may have some possibilities as it could, if the performance data is to be believed, replace the M2 in some roles.

No doubt though there are a few weapons preloaded onto the Army's UOR list for the next conflict, currently sitting in the "Nice to have", column but not being a high enough priority to justify regular expenditure.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The GPMG being developed in the US using a .308 Magnum cartridge may have some possibilities

Would that be a Gpmg as compared to the well tried/ respected MG42's definitely hard hitting round (7.92x56mm), the growth over which for the .338 is 8.5% and 25%, respectively (wouldn't .308 be too close to what is in use for not to bother with a change?)
- in semi-auto a long-range support weapon that can double on 'sniper duty'
- in full auto too heavy to be anything other than vehicle mounted?

[Andy-M]

It's always amazed me that the Barrett 240 LWS never got any major orders, an under 20lbs GPMG, no exotic metals involved so keeping the cost down, they've given up marketing it and sold the design rights on to Geissele Automatics.



https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... rrett-mfg/

[Lord Jim]

Sorry my mistake I was talking about the new US Army LMG/GPMG using the .338 Norma Magnum round. Sig Sauer and General Dynamics have submitted designs, both are lighter than the M240 or L7 as we know it yet they can accurately reach out to 1800m and have serious stopping power even at that range. Both use suppressors and the Sig model can use an optic with built in Laser Range Finder! All this and even the recoil is no more than the L7 thanks to the reciprocating barrel.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thanks, will have to watch those vids!

both are lighter than the M240 or L7

Not (?) after you count in, say, 100 rounds
... which is not quite what you would need for a MG, but as

they can accurately reach out to 1800m and have serious stopping power even at that range.

they will make for a new category of support weapons and make the 'infantry taking back the kilometer' theorists eat dust, or their shorts... free choice

[Lord Jim]

Not (?) after you count in, say, 100 rounds

The rounds on the GD weapon at least have composite casings, making them the same if no lighter than the traditional NATO 7.62mm. They seem to have thought of everything here.

[Tinman]

Other specialist units are also starting to use the L119A2 is for its greater utility in CQB condition, such as being ambidextrous, but I get your point regarding SF.

The L7 is still a bloody good weapon, shame it took the US so long to realise. Its only real downside is weight, and going down the "Titanium Gun", modification route like the US did in a limited way if not financially viable. It also seems that LMG designs brought up to 7.62mm NATO do not seem to match the L7s performance as far as the UK is concerned even though the Minimi Mk3 is in service with the US military and others like the Negev seem to satisfy their users.

We will probably keep using the L7A2 until something comes along that really changes things. The GPMG being developed in the US using a .308 Magnum cartridge may have some possibilities as it could, if the performance data is to be believed, replace the M2 in some roles.

No doubt though there are a few weapons preloaded onto the Army's UOR list for the next conflict, currently sitting in the "Nice to have", column but not being a high enough priority to justify regular expenditure.

You can fire the L85a3 from the right in CQB situation s if needed, it’s awkward similarly if I was to shoot the L119a2 left handed, we have glocks and combat shotguns if needed. Frangible rounds are the driving force for the RM, reason being is dont want rounds to over-penetrate.

[Lord Jim]

Thanks for the info, I knew you could fire the L85 from the right if needed. I just think people think it is easier with the L119A2. I forgot to mention the frangible rounds and their importance in the discussion so thanks again for bringing that up. As for Combat Shotguns, those are now in short supply having mainly been canned except for in certain specialist units or so I have read and been told.

[ArmChairCivvy]

having mainly been canned except for in certain specialist units or so I have read and been told.

Err, like when you need to break down doors or locks, without having to stand right by them?

[Lord Jim]

Yep, but the L128A1 was widely issued in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now along with other shotguns, limited to SF and a few but very few other units.

[Tinman]

Yep, but the L128A1 was widely issued in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now along with other shotguns, limited to SF and a few but very few other units.

Where did you here that? Read that as there are available in the armoury where I am stationed, you should read the pinstriped line, blog as it has as much info about ROyal Navy as you do regarding small arms.

[Lord Jim]

If the L128A1 is still in general circulation then I stand corrected. I only mention what I have read in books or heard form others but there is always room for error. So do the RN have then on board vessels for Boarding Parties then? The RM Fleet Protection units are one of those specialised units I have been refering to.