Section Infantry Weapons

[Poiuytrewq]

….will that create more of an issue as the next time a war goes hot the RM will likely find themselves in the same situation serving alongside the army.

Lots of possible negatives but the one major positive is the ability to thoroughly test, under realistic conditions, a medium capacity 6.5mm.

I would be amazed if the feedback is anything other than overwhelmingly positive.

[jimthelad]

The issue is that Creedmoor was trialed and found not to offer a real advantage over 7.62 x 51mm, as in it can be defeated by modern body armour.

The US trials the 6.5CM vs 7.62 showed it doubling the hit probability at 1000 metres, 33% increase in effective range, 30% increase in energy on target, 40% decrease in wind effect on bullet and decreased recoil, you might not call that a real advantage but i would call that a major advance over the 7.62.

The design of 6.5 CM with its slightly shorter case allows it to fit long bullets without seating bullets deep into the body of the case so as to be able to fit within the max COAL of a AR10 rifle bringing the advantages of bullets with high ballistic coefficients and sectional density that enables less wind drift, relatively low recoil and long barrel life.

No trials were ever conducted to justify the selection the 6.8 x51 cartridge, expect some US Army Colonel made an arbitrary choice to use brute force to defeat modern body armour and never considered the other alternatives.

Morning Nick, let's roll back on the claims in a real world context...

The effectiveness at extreme range in real world conditions really are neither here or there in the context of an issued designated rifle.

I've shot out to 1000 yards with my .30-06, is it capable of the range, yes, could you hit a man sized target in anything but the most benign conditions, nope.....

Now, Marine Joe Blogs with his all singing, all dancing LM 6.5 mm, will be engaging targets out to 500 yards, 600 tops, in reality, most shots taken at between 300 and 400, with 300 likely to be a typical engagement range.

5.56 accuracy starts to break down over 300 meters on blustery days, at 400 plus it's a pointless guessing game. The real world reality is, your designated marksman will be there to engage targets from 300 to 600.

Identification of fleeting hidden targets at 300 yards starts to get really tricky, let alone opening out the range to 800/1000!!

800 plus is the realms of a highly skilled and expertly trained sniper, with a .338, it's a totally different ball game.

So when I say there's no real difference in 7.62 compared to 6.5, there really isn't, not in the real world.

I can only assume the RM's see enough advantage in the caliber in the intermediate range arena?

Still seems a strange choice to me, never mind the logistics of having to store and issue a NATO non standard calibre.

[Little J]

The US trials the 6.5CM vs 7.62 showed it doubling the hit probability at 1000 metres, 33% increase in effective range, 30% increase in energy on target, 40% decrease in wind effect on bullet and decreased recoil, you might not call that a real advantage but i would call that a major advance over the 7.62.

Morning Nick, let's roll back on the claims in a real world context...

The effectiveness at extreme range in real world conditions really are neither here or there in the context of an issued designated rifle.

I've shot out to 1000 yards with my .30-06, is it capable of the range, yes, could you hit a man sized target in anything but the most benign conditions, nope.....

Now, Marine Joe Blogs with his all singing, all dancing LM 6.5 mm, will be engaging targets out to 500 yards, 600 tops, in reality, most shots taken at between 300 and 400, with 300 likely to be a typical engagement range.

5.56 accuracy starts to break down over 300 meters on blustery days, at 400 plus it's a pointless guessing game. The real world reality is, your designated marksman will be there to engage targets from 300 to 600.

Identification of fleeting hidden targets at 300 yards starts to get really tricky, let alone opening out the range to 800/1000!!

800 plus is the realms of a highly skilled and expertly trained sniper, with a .338, it's a totally different ball game.

So when I say there's no real difference in 7.62 compared to 6.5, there really isn't, not in the real world.

I can only assume the RM's see enough advantage in the caliber in the intermediate range arena?

Still seems a strange choice to me, never mind the logistics of having to store and issue a NATO non standard calibre.

Doubling hit probability at a 1000 and all the other advantages, so by definition would still have advantages at closer ranges, but you still cant see a "real difference"? And yet, you want to jump on the (unproven) 6.8 bandwagon? You confuse me Sir, You certainly do confuse me

[mrclark303]

The US trials the 6.5CM vs 7.62 showed it doubling the hit probability at 1000 metres, 33% increase in effective range, 30% increase in energy on target, 40% decrease in wind effect on bullet and decreased recoil, you might not call that a real advantage but i would call that a major advance over the 7.62.

Morning Nick, let's roll back on the claims in a real world context...

The effectiveness at extreme range in real world conditions really are neither here or there in the context of an issued designated rifle.

I've shot out to 1000 yards with my .30-06, is it capable of the range, yes, could you hit a man sized target in anything but the most benign conditions, nope.....

Now, Marine Joe Blogs with his all singing, all dancing LM 6.5 mm, will be engaging targets out to 500 yards, 600 tops, in reality, most shots taken at between 300 and 400, with 300 likely to be a typical engagement range.

5.56 accuracy starts to break down over 300 meters on blustery days, at 400 plus it's a pointless guessing game. The real world reality is, your designated marksman will be there to engage targets from 300 to 600.

Identification of fleeting hidden targets at 300 yards starts to get really tricky, let alone opening out the range to 800/1000!!

800 plus is the realms of a highly skilled and expertly trained sniper, with a .338, it's a totally different ball game.

So when I say there's no real difference in 7.62 compared to 6.5, there really isn't, not in the real world.

I can only assume the RM's see enough advantage in the caliber in the intermediate range arena?

Still seems a strange choice to me, never mind the logistics of having to store and issue a NATO non standard calibre.

Doubling hit probability at a 1000 and all the other advantages, so by definition would still have advantages at closer ranges, but you still cant see a "real difference"? And yet, you want to jump on the (unproven) 6.8 bandwagon? You confuse me Sir, You certainly do confuse me

Again, I've not said we should jump on the 6.8 bandwagon, I've mearly pointed out that should we adopt a new calibre, it will be a NATO adoption and that will be 6.8x51mm ( because Uncle Sam calls the shots), what's confusing about that old chap??

Re the othe point, no 6.5 mm has no real world meaningful advantage out to 500 yards over 7.62mm, nothing confusing there either....

Happy for someone to point out the substantial ballistic improvements of 6.5 over 7.62 at realistic ranges on a two way range in the hands of DM.....

[Little J]

If 6.5 is not better than 7.62 and neither is 6.8, then we can all rest easy knowing that we don't have to change anything. We can just break out the SLR's and crack on

[mrclark303]

If 6.5 is not better than 7.62 and neither is 6.8, then we can all rest easy knowing that we don't have to change anything. We can just break out the SLR's and crack on

Ok, here's two I prepared earlier, yes indeed 7.62x51mm is god's own calibre.....

[Little J]

Real SUIT or repro?

[NickC]

Happy for someone to point out the substantial ballistic improvements of 6.5 over 7.62 at realistic ranges on a two way range in the hands of DM.....

The problem with the 7.62/.308 is basically its a weak short 30-06 without the powder capacity and the resultant power needed to drive the heavier longer bullets with high ballistic coefficients and sectional density in the .308 calibre, the large heavier 308 calibre rounds comes with big drawback of much higher recoil.

The 6.5mm Creedmoor is able to shoot heavier long BC bullets due to its smaller calibre for flat trajectories and SD (would note a larger calibre does nothing to decrease wind deflection, that requires bullets with high BC numbers plus velocity). Bullets with higher SD, the better the bullet can retain its FPS momentum, with sufficient energy to ensure deep penetration on target.

The US Trails used a 308 with a 175 gn SMK @ 2,600 FPS with its BC .505 and SD .264 which was unable to match the ballistics for the lighter Hornady 6.5mm 147 gn @2,600 FPS which has a substantially better BC .697 and SD .301 and you can see that reflected in the numbers with the much better performance it confers to the 6.5CM reflected in the table.

I've shot out to 1000 yards with my .30-06, is it capable of the range, yes, could you hit a man sized target in anything but the most benign conditions, nope.....

Now, Marine Joe Blogs with his all singing, all dancing LM 6.5 mm, will be engaging targets out to 500 yards, 600 tops, in reality, most shots taken at between 300 and 400, with 300 likely to be a typical engagement range.

The 6.5CM L129A2 is not for Marine Joe Blogs, but those chosen as snipers with ability to hit at targets at long range, from what you say I don't think you will be picked any time soon for the Palma team whose rifles with metallic iron sights shoot at 1000 yds targets in all weathers.

[Little J]

Real SUIT or repro?

Real, I've a collection of L2A1 and A2 Suits,some shoot better than others....

[mrclark303]

Happy for someone to point out the substantial ballistic improvements of 6.5 over 7.62 at realistic ranges on a two way range in the hands of DM.....

The problem with the 7.62/.308 is basically its a weak short 30-06 without the powder capacity and the resultant power needed to drive the heavier longer bullets with high ballistic coefficients and sectional density in the .308 calibre, the large heavier 308 calibre rounds comes with big drawback of much higher recoil.

The 6.5mm Creedmoor is able to shoot heavier long BC bullets due to its smaller calibre for flat trajectories and SD (would note a larger calibre does nothing to decrease wind deflection, that requires bullets with high BC numbers plus velocity). Bullets with higher SD, the better the bullet can retain its FPS momentum, with sufficient energy to ensure deep penetration on target.

The US Trails used a 308 with a 175 gn SMK @ 2,600 FPS with its BC .505 and SD .264 which was unable to match the ballistics for the lighter Hornady 6.5mm 147 gn @2,600 FPS which has a substantially better BC .697 and SD .301 and you can see that reflected in the numbers with the much better performance it confers to the 6.5CM reflected in the table.

I've shot out to 1000 yards with my .30-06, is it capable of the range, yes, could you hit a man sized target in anything but the most benign conditions, nope.....

Now, Marine Joe Blogs with his all singing, all dancing LM 6.5 mm, will be engaging targets out to 500 yards, 600 tops, in reality, most shots taken at between 300 and 400, with 300 likely to be a typical engagement range.

The 6.5CM L129A2 is not for Marine Joe Blogs, but those chosen as snipers with ability to hit at targets at long range, from what you say I don't think you will be picked any time soon for the Palma team whose rifles with metallic iron sights shoot at 1000 yds targets in all weathers.

Totally missing the point... there is a 'world of difference' between a prone Field Target shooter, trussed up with a single point sling and dressed like a power ranger, shooting at Bisley out to 1,000 yards, to RM Joe Blogs returning fire or providing harassing fire with his 6.5 AR on the two way range, you obviously do know that Nick, so I'm assuming you are just trying to wind me up....

Snipers arn't issued with 6.5/7.62 AR's, they are designated Marksman, skilled shooters, but not the same as a trained sniper, who can and do take shots out to 1000 yards with his .338.

I've shot alongside trained snipers and they are a totally different breed..

Show me the man who can repeatedly and accurately hit a man sized target at 1000 yards in real world conditions with 6.5 and I will call bullshit every time.

[marktigger]

7.62 x 51 was designed to be 30 06 in a shorter case with better propellent giving it the performance of 30 06.
Because thats what the US board of ordnance wanted. We wanted .280 as the theoretical Ideal projectile is around 7mm.
The Americans switched to 5.56 and NATO followed now they have gone to 6.8 and NATO will end up following. It's now more which small arms to go for. And given the discussion on a number of forums on the new cartridge and rifle the trials have been not just a target shooter on a range. They have been in field trials and realistic training. And the shortcomings of 5.56 at longer ranges are known and the loss of performance of 7.62 x51 are well known. But as ever the folk singing has started oh the old one was better. I would suggest the same thing happened with .303.
going back to a cartridge that gives better preformance out to 500-600m could well mean logistics being simplified not having to supply a seperate round for a DMR and Link can if necessary be broken down and the loose rounds put in rifle. As to accuracy I remember section firing SLR out to 800m. But able with a little practice to hit at 400 & 500 as an individual with Iron sights. if a New rifle and optic can produce similar with average shots then is there a need for the DMR.
Hopefully the end of the SA80 is nigh. But what next do we Buy American rifle or what is offered from Europe?

[NickC]

Geissele Automatics 31 August 2023 won the contract for the SOCOM MRGG-S (Mid-Range Gas Gun - Sniper) programme launched more than three years ago in preference others including FN and LWT (L129A2) rifles. MRGG-S spec was a semi-automatic rifle with a 20-inch barrel, weighing less than 10.5 lbs, firing the 6.5mm Creedmoor with an objective accuracy requirement of 0.5 MOA. The rifle had to be capable of 1 MOA accuracy after firing 5,000 rounds. Geissele rifle will be designated the Mk1 Mod0.

47:00

[mrclark303]

7.62 x 51 was designed to be 30 06 in a shorter case with better propellent giving it the performance of 30 06.
Because thats what the US board of ordnance wanted. We wanted .280 as the theoretical Ideal projectile is around 7mm.
The Americans switched to 5.56 and NATO followed now they have gone to 6.8 and NATO will end up following. It's now more which small arms to go for. And given the discussion on a number of forums on the new cartridge and rifle the trials have been not just a target shooter on a range. They have been in field trials and realistic training. And the shortcomings of 5.56 at longer ranges are known and the loss of performance of 7.62 x51 are well known. But as ever the folk singing has started oh the old one was better. I would suggest the same thing happened with .303.
going back to a cartridge that gives better preformance out to 500-600m could well mean logistics being simplified not having to supply a seperate round for a DMR and Link can if necessary be broken down and the loose rounds put in rifle. As to accuracy I remember section firing SLR out to 800m. But able with a little practice to hit at 400 & 500 as an individual with Iron sights. if a New rifle and optic can produce similar with average shots then is there a need for the DMR.
Hopefully the end of the SA80 is nigh. But what next do we Buy American rifle or what is offered from Europe?

The L85A3 has plenty of life in it, the new HK bodies
(5,000 ordered at a time), plus the ongoing manufacturing of replacement bolt groups, barrel and gas parts will keep the A3 viable for many years to come.

I suspect that Knights Armament will be the go to supplier, they really are excellent platforms...

Re the L1A1, my two will typically print 3" groups at 100 yards, the 'right hand of the free world' was never particularly accurate to be fair, but plenty good enough for government work!

I would agree that 500 yards is the maximum effective range, based purely on the rifles accuracy limitations.

The round is capable way beyond that, the platform less so. I remember some limited range time with L96's about 10 years ago, now there's a rifle that rang out every last mm of accuracy out of 762x51mm!

Lovely rifles.....

I find it amazing the KA claim their AR platform is capable of sub moa out of the box, that's really impressive, you simply can't do that with most AR's due to the bloody heavy standard mil spec trigger!

[mr.fred]

I find it amazing the KA claim their AR platform is capable of sub moa out of the box, that's really impressive, you simply can't do that with most AR's due to the bloody heavy standard mil spec trigger!

Trigger weight isn't really relevant to the mechanical accuracy of a rifle though.

[NickC]

I find it amazing the KA claim their AR platform is capable of sub moa out of the box, that's really impressive, you simply can't do that with most AR's due to the bloody heavy standard mil spec trigger!

Would not be surprised if the claim for sub MOA true as impression is that production knowhow in barrels has improved. In 2019 KAC received SOCOM contract to replace their M110K1 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) 7.62 upper receiver assemblies with new upper receiver in 6.5mm Creedmoor to provide longer distance and increased range. Presume KAC one of the competitors for the MRGG-S contract won by Geissele.

Geissele made their reputation with their semi and full auto two stage combat triggers, claimed it was the best, the Super Semi-Automatic Enhanced (SSA-E™), first stage three and half pounds, second stage a crisp one and half pounds and used by SOCOM

,

[mrclark303]

I find it amazing the KA claim their AR platform is capable of sub moa out of the box, that's really impressive, you simply can't do that with most AR's due to the bloody heavy standard mil spec trigger!

Trigger weight isn't really relevant to the mechanical accuracy of a rifle though.

It most certainly has an effect when we are talking
1 moa.

A typical mil spec AR trigger weighs in at about 5lb, some slightly lighter, some even heavier!!

A 5lb trigger is sufficiently hard to effect accuracy. I've fired AR's with the dreadful heavy 3rd burst group (A2), there is a world of difference between that and and an AR with one of the custom drop in units. It absolutely effects accurate placement of shots.

[mrclark303]

I find it amazing the KA claim their AR platform is capable of sub moa out of the box, that's really impressive, you simply can't do that with most AR's due to the bloody heavy standard mil spec trigger!

Would not be surprised if the claim for sub MOA true as impression is that production knowhow in barrels has improved. In 2019 KAC received SOCOM contract to replace their M110K1 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) 7.62 upper receiver assemblies with new upper receiver in 6.5mm Creedmoor to provide longer distance and increased range. Presume KAC one of the competitors for the MRGG-S contract won by Geissele.

Geissele made their reputation with their semi and full auto two stage combat triggers, claimed it was the best, the Super Semi-Automatic Enhanced (SSA-E™), first stage three and half pounds, second stage a crisp one and half pounds and used by SOCOM

,

Now that sounds like one sweet trigger Nick!

Personally speaking, I find a 3.5lb break on an AR about perfect for the platform, 1.5lb 🫣!! Yikes, all I can say is don't drop it with the safety off!!!!!

[mr.fred]

It most certainly has an effect when we are talking
1 moa.

A typical mil spec AR trigger weighs in at about 5lb, some slightly lighter, some even heavier!!

A 5lb trigger is sufficiently hard to effect accuracy. I've fired AR's with the dreadful heavy 3rd burst group (A2), there is a world of difference between that and and an AR with one of the custom drop in units. It absolutely effects accurate placement of shots.

But that's off the shoulder and therefore dependent on the skill of the shooter.
The rifle alone, when clamped down, might be able to score 1MOA, but that's independent of the shooter, and therefore the weight of the trigger.

[BB85]

The L85A3 has plenty of life in it, the new HK bodies
(5,000 ordered at a time), plus the ongoing manufacturing of replacement bolt groups, barrel and gas parts will keep the A3 viable for many years to come.

There is no way ordering 5,000 L85A3 bodies, barrels and bolts from HK makes any kind of economic sense especially when it's a completely inferior rifle to what is available on the market today. The only rational would be to maintain the existing manual of arms, which will be slowly changes as new rifles transition to the new ranger regiments. I'd be shocked although not surprised if the L85 isn't replaced at the end of the decade.

KAC isn't using US mil specs from the 80s, If they are not using Geissele 2 stage triggers they are using their own version that will be similar in performance. Their sub moa claim will rely on using target ammo and low wind etc but don't see their claim being unrealistic at all.

[marktigger]

The L85A3 has plenty of life in it, the new HK bodies
(5,000 ordered at a time), plus the ongoing manufacturing of replacement bolt groups, barrel and gas parts will keep the A3 viable for many years to come.

I suspect that Knights Armament will be the go to supplier, they really are excellent platforms...

Re the L1A1, my two will typically print 3" groups at 100 yards, the 'right hand of the free world' was never particularly accurate to be fair, but plenty good enough for government work!

I would agree that 500 yards is the maximum effective range, based purely on the rifles accuracy limitations.

The round is capable way beyond that, the platform less so. I remember some limited range time with L96's about 10 years ago, now there's a rifle that rang out every last mm of accuracy out of 762x51mm!

Lovely rifles.....

I find it amazing the KA claim their AR platform is capable of sub moa out of the box, that's really impressive, you simply can't do that with most AR's due to the bloody heavy standard mil spec trigger!

SA80 is finished. for it to continue when the new calibre comes in would need so much engineering work it would be cheaper to buy a new system. But like I said the "Folk Singers" will start about how much better the old one was I'm as guilty about SLR It for the 1950's is a fantastic platform but time moves on. Like it did for the Lee Enfield, Vickers Machine Gun et al

There are a number of excellent platforms out there from different suppliers KA, LMT, FN, Sig, HK all produce superb platforms i hope its a sensible choice. Same with the support weapon. Or will FN bring out a MAG or Maximi in the new round (Highly likley).

The SLR/FAL was a superb platform for its day and it's easy to see why it was the right hand of the free world. Hopefully the repalcement for SA80 will go back it The SLR principles and standards.

I agree with what you say about the L96 and 7.62 was it Green Spot or conventional ball used?
There are ballistics issues at range, probably that wouldn't affect the average rifleman. But in the more prescise it can make a difference.

my hope is our troops get a robust, simple and reliable rifle from the off and not the pigs ear that was the S85 Program

[mrclark303]

The L85A3 has plenty of life in it, the new HK bodies
(5,000 ordered at a time), plus the ongoing manufacturing of replacement bolt groups, barrel and gas parts will keep the A3 viable for many years to come.

There is no way ordering 5,000 L85A3 bodies, barrels and bolts from HK makes any kind of economic sense especially when it's a completely inferior rifle to what is available on the market today. The only rational would be to maintain the existing manual of arms, which will be slowly changes as new rifles transition to the new ranger regiments. I'd be shocked although not surprised if the L85 isn't replaced at the end of the decade.

KAC isn't using US mil specs from the 80s, If they are not using Geissele 2 stage triggers they are using their own version that will be similar in performance. Their sub moa claim will rely on using target ammo and low wind etc but don't see their claim being unrealistic at all.

They have been ordering lots of 5, 000 bodies for a few years now for the ongoing A3 rebuild programme.

Only the original TMH's now remain, so it's a bit of a triggers broom!

It still represents the bulk (85%) of the issued individual small arms and the ongoing A2 rebuild could theoretically keep the A3 in service for many years to come.

Why, because it's cheaper to rebuild than order 100,000 brand new rifles. I wouldn't necessarily call it inferior, it's still a perfectly capable rifle, but it's time is done.....

In reality, it's a sticking plaster, just to keep the show on the road and in its A3 platform, it's a reliable and capable rifle, so no crashing hurry.

If the UK sticks with 5.56mm, then I would say that we will see a rolling buy of KA AR's, slowly replacing all the teeth elements, then progressively replacing the L85A3 accross the armed forces.

[NickC]

It most certainly has an effect when we are talking
1 moa.

A typical mil spec AR trigger weighs in at about 5lb, some slightly lighter, some even heavier!!

A 5lb trigger is sufficiently hard to effect accuracy. I've fired AR's with the dreadful heavy 3rd burst group (A2), there is a world of difference between that and and an AR with one of the custom drop in units. It absolutely effects accurate placement of shots.

But that's off the shoulder and therefore dependent on the skill of the shooter.
The rifle alone, when clamped down, might be able to score 1MOA, but that's independent of the shooter, and therefore the weight of the trigger.

Ref the above Geissele Automatics video they claim that at the end of the trials for the SOCOM 6.5mm Creedmoor Mid-Range Gas Gun – Sniper, MRGG-S, which they won, three rifles after each shooting 6,400 rounds (original trial spec was for 5,000 rounds to check barrel life) they averaged from a full magazine, 20 rounds, .97, .76 and .49 MOA respectively with their in house cold hammered forged barrels.

PS Triggers, with my 6 PPC benchrest rifle use a one and half ounce trigger to minimise any disturbance to rifle on firing, just to emphasise that heavy triggers do effect accuracy.

[Little J]

They have been ordering lots of 5,000 bodies for a few years now for the ongoing A3 rebuild programme.

Only the original TMH's now remain, so it's a bit of a triggers broom!

It still represents the bulk (85%) of the issued individual small arms and the ongoing A2 rebuild could theoretically keep the A3 in service for many years to come.

Why, because it's cheaper to rebuild than order 100,000 brand new rifles. I wouldn't necessarily call it inferior, it's still a perfectly capable rifle, but it's time is done.....

In reality, it's a sticking plaster, just to keep the show on the road and in its A3 platform, it's a reliable and capable rifle, so no crashing hurry.

If the UK sticks with 5.56mm, then I would say that we will see a rolling buy of KA AR's, slowly replacing all the teeth elements, then progressively replacing the L85A3 across the armed forces.

Yes, HK were supplying new bodies marked A3 long before there was a A3 rifle, causing some confusion

Like the rest of the upgrades, HK didn't really do that much, basically just making the parts to the correct spec's and with the correct materials.

If Enfield had built the thing properly in the first place OR the wimp's in the Army development units had actually stood up and said that it wasn't good enough, its rep wouldn't have been half as bad as it is (and yes it still has many flaws that i would like to get in a time machine and ask them wtf they where thinking of!!!!)

But whatever replaces it needs to win a clear and open competition. SLR was in service for 40 yrs, L85 will beat that. They need to choose wisely.

[mrclark303]

They have been ordering lots of 5,000 bodies for a few years now for the ongoing A3 rebuild programme.

Only the original TMH's now remain, so it's a bit of a triggers broom!

It still represents the bulk (85%) of the issued individual small arms and the ongoing A2 rebuild could theoretically keep the A3 in service for many years to come.

Why, because it's cheaper to rebuild than order 100,000 brand new rifles. I wouldn't necessarily call it inferior, it's still a perfectly capable rifle, but it's time is done.....

In reality, it's a sticking plaster, just to keep the show on the road and in its A3 platform, it's a reliable and capable rifle, so no crashing hurry.

If the UK sticks with 5.56mm, then I would say that we will see a rolling buy of KA AR's, slowly replacing all the teeth elements, then progressively replacing the L85A3 across the armed forces.

Yes, HK were supplying new bodies marked A3 long before there was a A3 rifle, causing some confusion

Like the rest of the upgrades, HK didn't really do that much, basically just making the parts to the correct spec's and with the correct materials.

If Enfield had built the thing properly in the first place OR the wimp's in the Army development units had actually stood up and said that it wasn't good enough, its rep wouldn't have been half as bad as it is (and yes it still has many flaws that i would like to get in a time machine and ask them wtf they where thinking of!!!!)

But whatever replaces it needs to win a clear and open competition. SLR was in service for 40 yrs, L85 will beat that. They need to choose wisely.

All absolutely correct, fun fact, it's often quoted that HK developed the numerous fixes for the L85A1, the vast majority were identified by the SASC at Warminster.

It was British Aerospace ( the then owners of Royal Ordnance) were paid to complete the contract of 300,000 L85A1's, with serious functional defects and 10 years later as then owners of HK, were paid again to put 200,000 of them right, with the A2 rebuild!

It beggars belief quite frankly...

Having had the opportunity to look at the A3 in some detail it's certainly a much better firearm than it's predecessor, 'finally' a full length rail !!

I agree, there should be a full and open competition to replace the A3, the Army's shortlist put though a comprehensive worldwide European/Arctic/desert/jungle torture test to destruction, with a UK facility to assemble and maintain the winner.

I doubt somehow that will happen unfortunately.... far too much like common sense!

[BB85]

Are the A3 receivers, Barrels and all other components manufactured by HK in the UK? If so there is a chance the 416 could be license produced in the UK.

I can't see anyone else setting up manufacturing facilities in the UK for an order of less than 100k rifles.