Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

April 2020, the U.S. Army picked L3Harris and Vortex Optics to compete for the NGSW fire control system with spec to rapidly engage man-sized targets out to 600 m or greater range with an advanced optic that contains a laser range finder, a ballistic calculator and provides the shooter with an automatic, adjusted aimpoint on new picatinny 'smart' rail, the T-Worx Intelligent Rail platform, which connects to the battlefield network and integrate real-time video/data and other analytics for transmission back to the command centre.

NGSW-FCS planned procurement 250,000 units, production scheduled to begin late 2021 with a budget of $819 million over the next five years, $3,260 per unit.

1)L3HARRIS recently announced delivery of 115 production prototype systems of its fire control units, "an integrated approach to augmented aiming by combining range-finding capability, ballistic computation and environmental sensors that increase the accuracy while decreasing the time to engage a threat" Leupold & Stevens provides the optics

2)Vortex with its 1-8x 30 objective with an active reticule fire control unit, claiming 1,000 m-capable laser rangefinder, state of the art on-board ballistic engine, atmospheric sensor suite, and programmable active matrix micro-display.

Note. The drawback of laser is that can also be seen clearly on infrared cameras/optics, which will easily give away the spotter's position.

If you were to base spec on Wehrmacht experience fighting the Russians on the eastern front, the StG 44 with the intermediate power 8mm Kurz round ~300m range was near perfect rifle, so why is the US Army now specifying a new full power 6.8 x 51 round for their troops, 6.8 is the opposite extreme from the light intermediate 5.56 round which was if anything not as powerful as needed, originally 5.56/223 US grabbed first thing to hand to counter the AK47s (Russians also supplied Viet Cong with captured StG 44s) in Vietnam, subsequently US loaded 5.56 hotter, higher pressure and with heavier bullets. Now US with the new 6.8 >600m range the resultant rifle and sights will be heavier and more expensive, ammo will be heavier and troops able to carry fewer rounds for fire fight than the 5.56. Would not be surprised if the US will keep M4 5.56 for the majority of their troops, with 6.8 replacing the 7.62, so still left with two rounds.

Why the British post WW II plan was to choose a single 'ideal' intermediate cartridge, the 280/7x43 slightly more powerful than the than the 8mm Kurz. :angel:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: compete for the NGSW fire control system with spec to rapidly engage man-sized targets out to 600 m or greater range with an advanced optic that contains a laser range finder, a ballistic calculator and provides the shooter with an automatic, adjusted aimpoint
This will cost them
... all the ranges will have to be redone :)
NickC wrote: $3,260 per unit.
Does the rifle itself go into roundation errors?
NickC wrote:augmented aiming
exactly... I hate this when the folks that can 'just do it' carry no more 'value add' :)
... well, when the batteries run out; the game is 'back on'
NickC wrote: Would not be surprised if the US will keep M4 5.56 for the majority of their troops, with 6.8 replacing the 7.62, so still left with two rounds
Nope, only for the half that are not in the frontline (M1 Carbine is now called M4 ;) )
NickC wrote:Why the British post WW II plan was to choose a single 'ideal' intermediate cartridge, the 280/7x43 slightly more powerful than the than the 8mm Kurz.
- the post war Russian post-mortem looked at the Kurz and the .30 round... and came up with the round for the AK-47. Since then they have followed the fashion and - in their own words - stepped on the same rake as the NATO 5.56, The film reel rolls on...
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: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: - the post war Russian post-mortem looked at the Kurz and the .30 round... and came up with the round for the AK-47. Since then they have followed the fashion and - in their own words - stepped on the same rake as the NATO 5.56, The film reel rolls on...
Do you mean the M43 round, named for the year of its introduction? That’s the round inspired by the German round introduced in the same year?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

OK, the film can be rolled back. too.

Crete (catastrophe for paratroopers -1942 that is now - even though a victory for the high command)
- a single, selective fire weapon required. Go, fetch:

7.92 x 57 did not work.

Yes, Kurz came in and the Soviets were so impressed that they copied it, in the same year
... now we are in 1943

SKD semi-auto carbine (they had loads and loads of the American ones, to learn from)
NOR the
RPD Light Machine Gun
impressed anyone that much.

War ended. The intermediate rounds from America (a full-auto carbin, looking much the same exc. for the size of the mag had emerged) and Kurz, with an AR like weapon for it were there for every one to see; and try out.

What happened next:
AK-47 trialled (and won) in 1947
... and was introduced the next year

What is the moral of the story? Both rounds came in at the same time (in the same year)
- neither could be produced from scratch (in volume)
so... the length was "the intermediate" factor and both sides were churning out the bullet side of it (the dimension) from what they had going

Now, in this cinema, the science of it (ballistics) reel is the next one showing
- though I think much of it has already been dome upthread
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Ok, lets assume the three sections in a platoon, and further that in a peer conflict you will have to be prepared to deal with MBTs without much warning. One could envisage a 'universal' fire support role for CG at platoon (3) or section (1) level, but then the anti-tank capability would be very much down to luck - with not so good odds
- whereas IFVs et al the CGs could easily dispatch (range permitting; the autocannons have a nasty reach out to 2 km - clear field of vision permitting).

The way to even the decks would be if all sections were to have a vehicle fitted with MMP-like NLOS weapon launchers, this then
- eliminates the need for an anti-tank capability at company HQ platoon level
- and the CG guys in each section could carry the laser designation kit, to make the most of the NLOS option for hard or distant targets

For any other targets than AFVs there would still be not just the CG for direct fire, but also the mortar platoon (from the company) to call on
- the manpower saving from (no) AT at company level could be used for ManPads and anti-UAV arrangements; namely, just spotting (but not destroying) a drone could be a harbinger for bad news, in the form of indirect fire falling in 5 minutes time
If you look at the additional ammunitions that had to be brought in during Afghan to deal with buildings the CG would just have meant an additional ammunition nature being brought in not a whole weapons system with its additional costs. I agree that the longer range guided missiles have a place. But I also see a direct fire weapon at that level as a useful force mulitplyer. But also for other units like logistics and support troops having a flexible weapon for local defence.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

mr.fred wrote:
marktigger wrote:does the longer barrel of the conventional minimi push the range up?

there are other options Minimi is available in 7.62x51

or the swede's developed a light FNMAG
There are other options, but none have been taken up. Read into that what you will.
the main thing I read into that is there is nothing wrong with the GPMG (there never was it should never have been withdrawn at section level)
but you could also read lack of money or lack of imagination.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

With ref to the US Army NGSW FCS mentioned above with its active laser rangefinder presumably just what the £100 million January 2021 British Army contract placed with Elbit for its target marking kit would easily identify and track with its CORAL thermal-imaging system?

Tried to post a pic of kit but not working for me :shh:

https://elbitsystems.com/pr-new/elbit-s ... grators%20(%E2%80%9C

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

NickC wrote:With ref to the US Army NGSW FCS mentioned above with its active laser rangefinder presumably just what the £100 million January 2021 British Army contract placed with Elbit for its target marking kit would easily identify and track with its CORAL thermal-imaging system?
Depends on the wavelength of the laser and how long it’s on for.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote: to deal with buildings the CG would just have meant an additional ammunition nature being brought in
Didn't they buy hole-in-the-wall :) punchers that, once fired, weighed zero pounds/kg for the rest of the patrol?
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Didn't we buy the Israeli Matador hole puncher under a UOR for Iraq and/or Afghanistan?

Or was it purchased as part of the core budgets, planned previously?

Is it still in service?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I lost track, but seem to remember that we bought some of those 'plenty quick' and then something else (similar) from Bofors, as a follow-on
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by SW1 »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -launchers

British Army troops in Mali are now reportedly using tiny unmanned aircraft that can be fired from standard 40mm grenade launchers. These diminutive quad-copter-type drones can be fitted with various payloads, ranging from full-motion electro-optical video cameras to small high-explosive or armor-piercing warheads, and that can fly together as a swarm after launch.

Overt Defense was first to report that members of the U.K. Task Group in Mali had received "several hundred" Drone40s from Australian firm DefendTex. British forces are in Mali as part of the country's Operation Newcombe, which provides support to Operation Barkhane, a French-led regional counter-terrorism effort, and the United Nation's Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, also known by its French acronym MINUSMA.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Quite amazing that with that size you can get them 12 mls forward, as long as LOS is maintained
- calling fire (are any Apaches going there?) after the laser designator has been activated is quite a bonus; of course for our 81mm mortar bombs there are no smart rounds... so something else then
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Quite amazing that with that size you can get them 12 mls forward, as long as LOS is maintained
- calling fire (are any Apaches going there?) after the laser designator has been activated is quite a bonus; of course for our 81mm mortar bombs there are no smart rounds... so something else then
It certainly is. Would be interesting if the could incorporate this with the work MBDA are doing with MMP and the french army on micro drones.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Just watching Forgotten Weapons on YouTube and came across this weapon and an interview with the designer. A 20mm direct fire grenade launcher. Could this be the answer to replace the LMG in Infantry Sections. It has a range up to 1000m, a velocity of 300m/sec and a lethal blast radius on impact of 2m.


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

Very interesting but would you add a person to a section or remove something like one GPMG in so having fire team 1 with this and fire team 2 with a GPMG. it is a case of weight of fire over rate of fire

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: would you add a person to a section or remove something like one GPMG in so having fire team 1 with this and fire team 2 with a GPMG
The answer could be different for mounted and Light infantry
- adding a person, in the case of the former, might not be practicable due to vehicle constraints. Having said that, they already have a third team: the one that stays with the vehicle... the vehicle typically mounting a support/ suppression weapon

In LI adding the 1 person should be the way to go; now 3 teams (not using 'fire team' as it carries a set meaning) emerge
- in 2 a GPMG or a SAW-like, lighter weapon
- in the section leader's team one of these 'grenade wonders' - need not be exactly the one pictured, though it would probably take the biscuit if all available designs were to be put side by side
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

So to pull some stuff together that has been push around if we were to take a new Boxer mechanised infantry battalion and give them 80 Boxers with 6 of them fitted with Nemo 120 mortar system and 8 in CVR for recce we could then give disembarked platoons a single 60mm mortar and sections this 20mm system

As a side I was watching a video on youtube of the Wiesel 120mm mortar system witch can be carried by a Chinook this would allow the same for 16AA with 6 Wiesel 120mm mortar giving battalion level cover 60mm at platoon level and 20 mm at section level

These would be backed up by Artillery at Brigade level

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: we could then give disembarked platoons a single 60mm mortar and sections this 20mm system
With everything you have written "in" I think we can skip that 60mm and keep it in armouries for troops helo-landed, and no other - at least in the first instance - means of indirect fire further out than the AR-underslung grenades ( 300m ?)
Tempest414 wrote:the Wiesel 120mm mortar system witch can be carried by a Chinook this would allow the same for 16AA with 6 Wiesel 120mm mortar
The Wiesel is an ingenious family of AFVs, but dates back to the days when there was a full division that could be "ferried out" to somewhere else than the Central Front
... and the contract with Lufthansa allowed commandeering their Jumbos, installing stronger floor plates (pre-stored) on them, and every a/c could take seven :!: Wiesels

I believe there are only 8 of the mortar variant left in active service, so that the tactics of CH-53s taking them to where ever they might be required can be practised
- the CH-53 replacement, itself, is an 'endangered' project
... which is a pity as for getting mountain-capable troops up to Norway, plenty quick, would point to the remaining mountains troops of Germany; and getting their fire support by other means than by mule, into the right spot, again plenty quick (once on the scene) would point to exactly that kind of 'combo'
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:With everything you have written "in" I think we can skip that 60mm and keep it in armouries for troops helo-landed, and no other - at least in the first instance - means of indirect fire further out than the AR-underslung grenades ( 300m ?)
Just for me if a Mechanised Battalion had 8 x Boxer based 120mm mortars range 10+ km , 9 x dismounted 60mm mortars range 3+ km plus 27 x 20mm grenade range 1km that is a lot of fire power and when back up by Brigade level Archer based artillery range 21+ km would mean a battalion could deliver 575 rounds per min of HE into a target area. This could be matched by a Mobile protected Battalion if we could fit 120mm mortar on Bushmaster or Eagle 6x6 witch can be done. It could even be achieved by air assault battalion if we could get them something like the Wiesel 120mm mortar system and 105mm light gun

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Between 2025 and 2030 we are going to be looking to replace the L85A3 according to what I can find so going by that premise should we adopt the US 6.8mm IR and AR. I have a real soft spot for the Sig Sauer proposal which is probably the most evolutionary rather than revolutionary as the other two seem to be. These weapons fit in very nicely with the British Army's desire to suppress the enemy through accurate fire and with the advanced optics could push the effective zone beyond the current 600m out to 800m.

We could then go one further and look to the Sig Sauer .338 Norma LMG as a replacement for the trusty old L7 GPMG. It is lighter, has greater range and stopping power. In fact we could also replace our stocks of M2 12.7mm HMGs with the same weapon and in thins case the weight saving is enormous.

Up next we have a disposable anti-tank weapon and here we are in a very good position as the NLAW is probably the best weapon in its class, having good range, high hit probability even against moving targets and a good warhead. We are in a similar situation when it come to sniper team weapons. Both the L115A4 (.338 Lapua Magnum) and the L129A1 (7.62 NATO) are very good weapons and if we need to really reach out and touch somebody we have the new AX50 12.7mm Anti-Material Rifle.

The British Army is also looking at improving the ammunition it uses, with the aim of both improving the accuracy and consistency of each round but also its terminal effects.

Back to the present and although there are some weight issues our current L85A3 is probably one of the best Assault Rifles in the world chambered to 5.56. Remember H&K took what it had learnt from updating the L85 when it was asked to improve the M4 carbine. With its longer barrel length it outranges and generally out shots nearly all of its rival, the M4 in particular, and now also has better reliability and a superb optic. Lastly we should retain the L123A3 Grenade launcher on the L85A3 and maybe purchase a limited number of standard version that can be fitted to the L129A1 and L119A2 rifles. So we are in a good situation there.

The L129A1 is an excellent DMR especially with the optics we have chosen for it, we just need more to equip all Infantry Section with it.

Now we come to the L7A2. This has been and still is a very good General Purpose Machine Gun. Its one blemish is its weight, though this is not such that it does seriously affect its utility within the Section. Attempts to make it lighter such as the US Marines altering the design to incorporate a substantial amount of Titanium have addressed this issue but at considerable cost per gun. The Swedes have made a reasonable attempt and could be worth looking into further. As an alternative though there is the M48 as used by various units in the US. This is basically the Mk2 MINIMI but in 7.62mm. It is also used by our Special Forces and has an effective range similar to the L7A2 but is lighter. Should be consider a limited purchase of these to equip the eight Battalions that are destines to make up the Armoured and Mechanised Infantry as well as the Battalions allocated to 16XX Brigade and the RM Commandos. The remaining units would retain the L7A2.

Also of use to the Infantry Section is the Israeli designed L2A1 also known as Matador. It is a very effective Anti-Structure Weapon with a proven combat record. It is easily man portable and stowed in vehicles, much like NLAW.

Now we come to Starstreak. At present it is operated in two main forms by the British Army. First is the SP version mounted on the Stormer AFV which carries eight ready to us rounds. This platform is also being modified to fire the MBDA LMM missile, which will increase the flexibility of the vehicle. Ideally with the introduction of the Army's new families of AFVs the Starstreak launchers should be transferred to a new platform, with a Boxer Module being the best option in my opinion. The second way Starstreak is deployed is using a three round pedestal launcher. This can either be vehicle mounted or ground mounted. At present Starstreak is only operated in the Army by one Regular and one Reserve Regiment of the Royal Artillery. In my opinion the pedestal version should also be disseminated to the Infantry battalions, at lest those in 3rd (UK) Division. There is a third launch method which can be used of course and that is to fire the Missile from the shoulder. I would like to see Starstreak available to Infantry Platoons, possibly a single two man fire team, or even down to section level if possible. Like ATGWs we need to increase the number of Guided Weapons in our Infantry Battalions to those approaching that of the late 1980s where some infantry Battalions had up to twenty four Milan Launchers!

And that bring us nicely onto ATGWs. At present the British Army uses the 4th Generation Javelin. This is a good weapon that has served the Army well in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it range is limited and it also lacks a man in the loop capability that is proving more and more useful. A solution would be to adopt the Spike family of weapons to fill a number of roles within the Army. The Spike SR with a range of 2000m is a disposable system and would be ideal for out lighter forces. Spike LR2 would be a good replacement for Javelin, having a range of 5500m and easily installed on vehicles as well as ground launched. It has the man in the loop capability desired as well. Next we have the Spike ER2. This would be an excellent weapon for any overwatch platform having a range op up to 18Km though only up to 10km with its fibre Optic wire. It could also be mounted on light vehicles such as the JLTV and Viking to give lighter forces a long range punch. And finally we have Spike NLOS with a range of up to 30KM. This is already in service with the Army as the Extractor Mk2. Its role and availability in the Army should be expanded to give all Brigades access to the weapon, providing precision fore support against high value targets. So at the section level I can see the issue of Spike SR to units who do not have access to the heavier Spike LR2, here we are talking 16XX and RM. In units with Spike LR2 ideally these would be vehicle mounted, with a number of vehicles carrying a ground launch unit for use if needed.

Other weapons that could be considered for the Infantry section are the Carl Gustav M4 and the 20mm Direct GL mentioned higher up the thread. The Former would replace the M2A1 within the Section possibly, but more likely it would be held at Platoon level. If the guided round enters production then it could also replace weapons such as the Spike SR, as it is planned to nave a range of up to 2000m and a variable warhead dependant on target. The latter weapon is very interesting but will require substantial trials to identify where ti should be used and at what level it should be issued.

The sermon hath ended.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: This could be matched by a Mobile protected Battalion if we could fit 120mm mortar on Bushmaster or Eagle 6x6 witch can be done.
I'm all for that and my comment/ criticism against overegging the indirect fire (at the cost of something else) in the higher up formations was akin to
... while not equating direct fire = AT only (as in: out to 1 km), which reasonably could be considered the limit of what a single platoon - not to mention a section - would need to influence
Lord Jim wrote:we have a disposable anti-tank weapon and here we are in a very good position as the NLAW is probably the best weapon in its class, having good range, high hit probability even against moving targets and a good warhead.
- the direct fire mode can be used for most of the things that a much more expensive (and heavy) AT-G-W aka Javelin has been used for, when it is the only one issued (routinely)

... will replenish the coffee, and answer the rest of the post by @LJ
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:As there are so many CG enthusiasts here, surely anyone who gets the short straw, to carry it (and some rounds?) around would only get issued with a PDW
- do we have any?

If MP40 was to be relegated to a PDW role in the redesigned infantry, late WW2, then M1 carbine was originally designed as a better-than-a-pistol PDW... and I had always thought that it was pulled in from cavalry, to get something into mass production plenty quick
officially in the good old days of the L14A1 Carl Gustav that weighed 36lbs unloaded you were "ment" to have a sterling :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

Grot MSBS...
The results of the tests were staggering. According to Moszner the gun overheated, parts such as the polymer stock and lower receiver tended to break, the rifle suffered from numerous malfunctions and the gas regulator in front of the Grot simply fell out. Besides that, the gun itself suffers from a lack of any anti-corrosive protection.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... in-poland/


Storm in a teacup or growing pains?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

How about reading the whole article rather than cherry picking a contentious point.

Post Reply