Section Infantry Weapons

[marktigger]

what was intended to replace the Lee Enfield before the decision was made to go for the SLR.

[Old RN]

And the reason for going with the SLR was because the USA decided that 7.62 should be the standard NATO round! The the USA goes with the the M16, so making the 5.56. Now they are talking about a 6mm, which is where the EM1/2 was planning in the 1950s!

[marktigger]

looking at the locking system on the EM2 I wonder how well it would have performed in Borneo, Aden and Oman?

[mr.fred]

looking at the locking system on the EM2 I wonder how well it would have performed in Borneo, Aden and Oman?

It did OK in Malaya.

[LordJim]

Given the financial pressures all nations are under, I would be very surprised if the US moved away from 7.62 and 5.56. Replacing every small arm except pistols, in service with all five services, training the personnel, setting up the workshops to support the new weapons, and building up ammunition stores would be hugely expensive.

7.62 is a good round. Keep using it with GPMGs and sharpshooter rifles and retain improved 5.56 for rifles. What I would do is replace all the MAGs and Minimis with the Minimi mk3 7.62 with the longer barrel. This would all an infantry section to engage the enemy at ranges greater then that of the AK and manoeuvre effectively. In the sustained fore role it is a light weapon and could redeploy more easily and the crew probably carry more ammo when on foot. Also you replace two weapons with one that can be made by converting existing versions of the Minimi if one wishes to save a small amount.

As for 5.56, those UK units that seems to carry the M16 will probably move to the HK416 if they haven't already done so and this will probably end up equipping the rest of the Armed forces over time starting with the Army's reactive force units. G36 excepted, nearly all HK products are bomb proof, so adopting it would probably be a zero risk affair. The SA80A3 seems to have potential, but all these are going to be modifications of existing rifles not new build so their lifespan is going to be limited.

Moving to 5.56 only sections would be a grave mistake. I believe many soldiers would happily carry a belt of 7.62 for their section 7.62 Minimi. The firepower it brings is the core of the whole sections firepower. This goes back to Vietnam where the M60 gunners provided the key effect as against the many M16s.

[mr.fred]

Moving to 5.56 only sections would be a grave mistake. I believe many soldiers would happily carry a belt of 7.62 for their section 7.62 Minimi. The firepower it brings is the core of the whole sections firepower. This goes back to Vietnam where the M60 gunners provided the key effect as against the many M16s.

Only if you're going to train the gunners properly.

7.62 is a good round. Keep using it with GPMGs and sharpshooter rifles and retain improved 5.56 for rifles. What I would do is replace all the MAGs and Minimis with the Minimi mk3 7.62 with the longer barrel. This would all an infantry section to engage the enemy at ranges greater then that of the AK and manoeuvre effectively. In the sustained fore role it is a light weapon and could redeploy more easily and the crew probably carry more ammo when on foot. Also you replace two weapons with one that can be made by converting existing versions of the Minimi if one wishes to save a small amount.

I trust that you mean MAGs and Minimis (L7s and L110s) at section level - you still want L7s for the Sustained Fire role as the 7.62mm Minimi won't handle the firing rates. The weight of the gun is going to be small compared to the ammunition scales.
Can you make a Mk3 7.62 weapon from an earlier mark 5.56mm gun? I would be surprised if you could.

[marktigger]

looking at the locking system on the EM2 I wonder how well it would have performed in Borneo, Aden and Oman?

It did OK in Malaya.

what the EM2?

[marktigger]

Given the financial pressures all nations are under, I would be very surprised if the US moved away from 7.62 and 5.56. Replacing every small arm except pistols, in service with all five services, training the personnel, setting up the workshops to support the new weapons, and building up ammunition stores would be hugely expensive.

7.62 is a good round. Keep using it with GPMGs and sharpshooter rifles and retain improved 5.56 for rifles. What I would do is replace all the MAGs and Minimis with the Minimi mk3 7.62 with the longer barrel. This would all an infantry section to engage the enemy at ranges greater then that of the AK and manoeuvre effectively. In the sustained fore role it is a light weapon and could redeploy more easily and the crew probably carry more ammo when on foot. Also you replace two weapons with one that can be made by converting existing versions of the Minimi if one wishes to save a small amount.

As for 5.56, those UK units that seems to carry the M16 will probably move to the HK416 if they haven't already done so and this will probably end up equipping the rest of the Armed forces over time starting with the Army's reactive force units. G36 excepted, nearly all HK products are bomb proof, so adopting it would probably be a zero risk affair. The SA80A3 seems to have potential, but all these are going to be modifications of existing rifles not new build so their lifespan is going to be limited.

Moving to 5.56 only sections would be a grave mistake. I believe many soldiers would happily carry a belt of 7.62 for their section 7.62 Minimi. The firepower it brings is the core of the whole sections firepower. This goes back to Vietnam where the M60 gunners provided the key effect as against the many M16s.

Same was being said about C7 at times (pity we didn't). We used to have 7.62mm GPMG at section level so why not just go back to that instead of procuring another weapon. As to future replacement i think its going to go very much on what Cartridge the US and then Probably NATO decide on, The current front runner is 6.5mm could 7mm like .280 British make a come back

[ArmChairCivvy]

7.62 is a good round. Keep using it with GPMGs and sharpshooter rifles and retain improved 5.56 for rifles. What I would do is replace all the MAGs and Minimis with the Minimi mk3 7.62 with the longer barrel. This would all an infantry section to engage the enemy at ranges greater then that of the AK and manoeuvre effectively.

A Minimi/ Maximi mix has much to go for it (and you can still "play with" the barrel length, depending on the mission/ terrain).

[marktigger]

swedes sid same with FNMAG so why not keep the logistics and training simple and do the same?
Gives flexibility from one weapon you can then go from light patrol to Sustained fire to vehicle/aircraft mounted just by changing configuration of parts on the same body. Saves costs in training and spares and we already have it in service?

http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/artiklar/u ... /ksp58.htm

[arfah]

.................

[marktigger]

The Spams have got the right idea with the M240L as a squad/section MG.

However, if a squaddie can have a weapon that is 5lbs (2.27kg) lighter, then he will carry the extra ammo to make up the weight.

https://www.fnamerica.com/products/mach ... ies/m240l/

yeap same idea

[ArmChairCivvy]

if a squaddie can have a weapon that is 5lbs (2.27kg) lighter, then he will carry the extra ammo to make up the weight.

and...

"Ksp 58 exists with both 6.5 mm barrels and 7.62 mm barrels.

The first type of gas regulator was original FN type. Later the FN type of gasregulator was improved and the type B regulator was installed first on all FN made Ksp 58 "

If you go and fight in the Arctic, your first 100 ltrs in the backpack are there just for you to survive... 6.5 ammo will be a welcome relief (weight-wise).

[arfah]

......................

[marktigger]

I'm not going to speculate on possible future ammunition.

We have what we have today, what we might have tomorrow will have a new set of problems.

yeap its just trying t get the balance

[mr.fred]

looking at the locking system on the EM2 I wonder how well it would have performed in Borneo, Aden and Oman?

It did OK in Malaya.

what the EM2?

The Rifle, No.9, so yes.

[marktigger]

looking at the locking system on the EM2 I wonder how well it would have performed in Borneo, Aden and Oman?

It did OK in Malaya.

what the EM2?

The Rifle, No.9, so yes.

any references for their use in Malaya? or trials in arduous enviroment's?

[Little J]

You've all probably seen this before, but this is the best quality I've yet to find...

[mr.fred]

any references for their use in Malaya? or trials in arduous enviroment's?

WO 291/1867. There was a .pdf of it put out on Antony Williams' forum a year or two back. My pdf reader is playing me up at the moment so it's a bit hard to review it, but there was no mention I recall of reliability issues cause by the environment.

[arfah]

..............

[ArmChairCivvy]

Not going as far back as to the travails the British Army had with its first incarnation of SA80, but at least that was rectified without going through the courts (like in Germany, recently) as now seems to be happening in India... and as an interim measure they are buying a design that has been around for close to 70 years! In a quantity that would give every infantryman and anyone that comes close to that in our forces a brand new weapon:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015 ... defective/

[marktigger]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016 ... ners-part/

Some of the technical reasons why a 70 year old design works

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016 ... s-part-ii/

[Little J]

Have you seen the Forgotten Weapons mud test with the AK (and others)? Wasn't scientific or anything but, the AK failed after one round, Was interesting... And in no way relevant to the really world

[marktigger]

its a mechanical device be interesting to see SA80 put through that

[Little J]

That would be interesting, image if it got a couple more shots off than the ak - Internet would go into meltdown