UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Section infantry weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Nov 2020, 08:47

J. Tattersall wrote: that's not in keeping with the tone of this forum, which is to criticise UK defence decisions at every possible opportunity.

Because of HK's key role in making it work, perhaps I'm allowed to diverge from Forum rules (everything in English) and say
"Ubung macht Meister". Namely
"was praised for its accuracy [as per LJ, upthread] when it worked properly, but that was nowhere near often enough. A number of fixes were implemented to address the most severe problems, but the L85A1 continued to have problems throughout the 1990s. In 1998, German small arms manufacturer Heckler and Koch received a contract to modify L85A1s to the L85A2 standard, incorporating further changes designed to boost reliability.

In 2016, the British Army began converting rifles to the -A3 standard."
- three strikes... and the L85 is still 'in' ;)

Of course you would know that all rational decision making is done 'at the margin' so in that sense the upgrade was the right decision
= hold the fort, and see where 'the big boys' are going with ARs/ SAWs

But let's not forget the backdrop:
"The L85A3 of today is an accurate and reliable weapon, but it took the UK government too long to correct the problems. Over the years the British Army has spent a total of $461 per rifle to make the weapon reliable, which is almost enough to [have] completely replaced the rifles with [brand new] M4 carbines"

Those interested in all the twists and turns can enjoy a read here:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... lure-93001
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 01 Nov 2020, 09:14

Over the life of the L85 the Americans have replaced their armalite rifles two or three times

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Nov 2020, 09:27

Yeah, but they worked from get-go
... except in muddy places.

Vietnam was well over by the time L85 entered service and perhaps there was a lesson learned, namely though the gas piston, rotating bolt design [...] was in many ways based on the U.S. designed Armalite AR-18 rifle[but it featured] adjustable gas system with positions for normal use, adverse conditions, and launching rifle grenades.
- taken from the same source I linked to above

Anyway, let's have some juicy stories from that side of the Atlantic - as they do abound
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)

NickC
Member
Posts: 838
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby NickC » 01 Nov 2020, 10:04

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote:US Army will award winner an order for 100,000 rifles but no with guarantee that rifle will adopted as standard issue


And when might that be?

The US Army in the summer carried out diagnostic tests for temperature, dust, water immersion, as well as drop tests, sound profile testing, accuracy, round dispersion, cook-off and endurance tests. Spring 2021 is set to be the start of the competitive record tests, so presuming contract award sometime late 2021?

Lake City arsenal have manufactured nearly a million projectiles (bullets), details and weight not disclosed, thou understand due to environmental impact no lead, so while previously thought it would be 135/140 gr bullet now maybe ~110gr, the plus as it will reduce recoil, the minus inferior ballistics.

US Army also state plastic and polymer is relatively inert and doesn’t really interact with the environment, referring to the rounds used in the GD bullpup rifle, polymer with metallic head, its certainly different especially as virtually no neck which would have thought would enhance neck erosion in barrel. The Textron rifle using a plastic cased telescoped coke can round, Heckler and Koch involved with Textron so assuming its a development of the H&K 4.73 x 33 caseless telescoped round manufactured by Winchester, might be wrong.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Nov 2020, 10:14

NickC wrote: no lead

In the plusses and minuses goes better(?) penetration of body armour
- a driver, but as far as I know... those details are 'unknown'
NickC wrote:4.73 x 33

V short; I assume powder or whatever propellant is differently distributed, relative to the 'traditional' design?
- those projectiles (every one will have to use the same) already manufactured, is the length of them known?
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: 432
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 01 Nov 2020, 11:40

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:

Little J
Member
Posts: 667
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 01 Nov 2020, 13:51

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Those interested in all the twists and turns can enjoy a read here:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... lure-93001


That article is soooo badly written :wtf:

I only got a few paragraphs into before I had to stop... I'll try and force myself to read it later

NickC
Member
Posts: 838
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby NickC » 01 Nov 2020, 14:32

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
NickC wrote: 4.73 x 33

V short; I assume powder or whatever propellant is differently distributed, relative to the 'traditional' design?
- those projectiles (every one will have to use the same) already manufactured, is the length of them known?

Apologies, my post badly worded, H&K developed the small intermediate 4.73 x 33 caseless telescoped coke can round for the West German G11 rifle, cancelled, H&K associated with Textron who are using a coke can telescoped round in 6.8 produced by Winchester, difference this time its using a plastic case, so was speculating if H&K caseless tech used or it could be possible H&K tech used in the design of the Textron rifle action.

Textron video pre-dates the 6.8 but assume the basis of their 6.8 rifles and coke can rounds, do wonder how the bolt can make it gas tight on firing, with most rifles the bolt has lugs which lock into the receiver to take the pressure, none present on the Textron bolt as can see in video.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Nov 2020, 17:11

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: 268
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Tinman » 03 Nov 2020, 17:12

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: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Nov 2020, 17:37

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: 667
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 03 Nov 2020, 20:16

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: 432
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 03 Nov 2020, 22:48

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: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Nov 2020, 00:54

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: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Nov 2020, 01:12

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

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 6900
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby SKB » 06 Nov 2020, 09:12

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: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Nov 2020, 13:42

Hence the need to read first :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Nov 2020, 19:18

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: 432
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 06 Nov 2020, 20:30

But was the cat black or white?1

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Nov 2020, 04:11

I am getting confused :? again!!!

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 432
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 07 Nov 2020, 07:50

Somebody has lost their little red book :roll:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Nov 2020, 09:03

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
Location: Australia

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby OldSchool » 14 Dec 2020, 06:10

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: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Dec 2020, 09:38

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: 667
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 14 Dec 2020, 14:19

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...


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests