Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
leonard
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

Breaking News guys !!!!!!!!
We have the first public sighting of the H&K entry for the new ranger rifle competition as always a beast of a rifle. In my modest opinion the frontrunner of the project!!!
Everybody opinions are welcome????
These users liked the author leonard for the post:
RunningStrong

Little J
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Has liked: 50 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

If we do jump on the Sig 6.8 bandwagon, then surely this is the more obvious choice...


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

With this "Eanger " Rifle doesn't it meant were well now have three 5.56mm Rifles is use by the Armed Forces, the L85, C7 and HK416. Ok they should all be able to use the same Magazines along with common attachments, but surly we have a chance to get on the 6.8mm Bandwagon as adopted by the US Army in the form of the M5. IF NATO still has designs on having common small arms ammunition the 6.8 round that goes with the M5 will eventually become the new standard NATO round, assuming it is fully adopted by the US Military in front line units.

leonard
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

With this post we have what FN Herstal think will be the best option for the next standard service rifle for the broader British Army.
Your thoughts are welcome????

Little J
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Has liked: 50 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

Other than the NRCH, what have they done to make it a mark 2?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Will our next "Service" Rifle still be in 5.56mm or will we choose something else, adopt the 6.8mm cartridge as used on the M5 and M250 now being adopted by the US Army?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2727
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 265 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 19:50 Will our next "Service" Rifle still be in 5.56mm or will we choose something else, adopt the 6.8mm cartridge as used on the M5 and M250 now being adopted by the US Army?
Unless the SIG 6.8mm round is basically made available gratis as a design to European countries I can't see anyone else starting to use it. Essentially the US has gone and done its own thing outside of an agreed NATO round. Who is going to pay huge, ongoing, sums of money to SIG to licence production? They're not.

Little J
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Has liked: 50 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 19:50 Will our next "Service" Rifle still be in 5.56mm or will we choose something else, adopt the 6.8mm cartridge as used on the M5 and M250 now being adopted by the US Army?
Well the new Ranger Reg requirement for an AR15 based rifle should give some idea of what the MoD is expecting to happen (purely my assumption, but i think a fair one)... Even Glock is submitting a rifle.

Little J
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Has liked: 50 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

Just to add to that..

LMT must be in with a good shout for this new rifle contract.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 608
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by whitelancer »

Why does the Ranger Regt want/need a new rifle rather than the SA80?

Why does it need to be an AR15 based rifle?

BB85
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 11 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by BB85 »

The Royal Marines are moving to the AR too aren't they? Being a lefty I hated the SA80. Maybe that's something to do with it for CQB it was always a compromise which is why the SAS never used it.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 40 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mr.fred »

whitelancer wrote: 08 Oct 2022, 19:18 Why does the Ranger Regt want/need a new rifle rather than the SA80?

Why does it need to be an AR15 based rifle?
Because it's ally?
BB85 wrote: 08 Oct 2022, 19:42 The Royal Marines are moving to the AR too aren't they? Being a lefty I hated the SA80. Maybe that's something to do with it for CQB it was always a compromise which is why the SAS never used it.
I'd heard that it was down to a frangible round (safer on board ships) working with an AR but not in the SA80.
Plus it's ally.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 16 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by jimthelad »

AR15 is anything but Ally. Personally I would go with a 6.8 mm Tavour on SCAR.

Little J
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Has liked: 50 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

Not sure of the reasoning, but an AR15 based platform was specified.


I personally like the Polish MSBS and the Czech Bren 2... But if it has to be an AR, the LMT MARS...


I like the Bullpup concept, but 70 years since the first one (EM2) was briefly adopted, I'm still waiting to see one designed properly.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Timmymagic wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 20:31
Lord Jim wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 19:50 Will our next "Service" Rifle still be in 5.56mm or will we choose something else, adopt the 6.8mm cartridge as used on the M5 and M250 now being adopted by the US Army?
Unless the SIG 6.8mm round is basically made available gratis as a design to European countries I can't see anyone else starting to use it. Essentially the US has gone and done its own thing outside of an agreed NATO round. Who is going to pay huge, ongoing, sums of money to SIG to licence production? They're not.
The US has done what it did in the 1960s when it adopted the M16 in 5.56mm when the NATO standard was 7.62mm. I cannot see Sig charging other NATO member a usage licence fee, but rather initally they will establish a proper sized manufacturing site for the ammunition in Europe. The M5 is another matter, but I cannot see anyone setting up a factory to manufacture it unless said country adopts it as their main service weapon. Instead, they will order form Sig itself. Then again when did the UK adopt a main ser5vice weapon that was not manufactured in the UK? WE build our own FN FALs to our configuration the L1A1.

The US has a major influence on what ammunition the rest of NATO uses; it was they who pushed for both 7.62mm and 5.56mm in end. Would it be worth the UK adopting a new general service weapon that was not the same as what the US is using. Yes, limited purchases for individual uits to provide an interim replacement of the L85 is a different matter/

But given how we have procured things in the recent past it is most likely that any and all options are open. I just hope we do not go down the route of replacing the L85 unit by unit.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2727
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 265 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Oct 2022, 00:14 The US has done what it did in the 1960s when it adopted the M16 in 5.56mm when the NATO standard was 7.62mm. I cannot see Sig charging other NATO member a usage licence fee, but rather initally they will establish a proper sized manufacturing site for the ammunition in Europe.
Thats not what happened though. The US adopted 5.56 with the USAF then the US Army in Vietnam. But it was a different 5.56 round that was adopted for NATO. The Belgian SS109 round won the competition and was produced across Europe and the US...very different from the US round, despite sharing the same calibre, and the US had to adapt/build new weapons to accomodate it.

No-one is going to let their state owned arsenals get taken over, or put out of business by SIG because of a US contract. And thats the problem. The technology of the round is proprietary to SIG, no way someone can just make a slightly different round and get the same benefits. And it was the same with the other US rounds in the competition like the Case Telescoped Round or True Velocity.

Unless SIG come to a very reasonable arrangement with other countries, say a European wide one off licence payment then no-one else is going to purchase 6.8mm for their main service rifle.

It's the same with the M5, no way are the German's picking a non-German rifle, the Italian's a non-Beretta, the Belgian's a non-FN...and on and on...the UK is potentially an exception to that rule, and potentially the French now (although they're now locked into to the H & K for the next 20 years at least. I don't think Ukraine has provided a big push to change over either...Ukrainian 5.45 seems to be doing very well, and its all about fragmentation weapons..

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

On US urgings as it was adopting the 5.56mm round, NATO was persuaded to adopt a similar round. AS you pointed out they did just adopt the existing US round but held a competition to find the best 5.56 round that would be available as the SS109 won and was adopted as the new NATO standard though not replacing 7.62mm including by the US. One of the results of this acceptance, all NATO members were allowed to manufacture the new round in house.

What the US military uses still has a huge impact on what other NATO member use. The US provides the majority of the consumables still held in NATO stores and has the greatest manufacturing capability for new items to compliment these if a major war was to break out. The fact that some NATO forces are only just introducing new rifles that use 5.56mm NATO is the fault of those countries if NATO changes its standard and they will have to live with it. Way back when 7.62mm was adopted, it caused many countries that had programmes underway for new small arms to have to accommodate the new calibre in these designs.

Would this happen quickly, probably not, the UK is probably in the position of one of the first to have to decide given the age of the L85. Nothing will happen until the M5 and M250 are in widespread service across the US military. This is not yet a definitive situation as only the US Army has signed up for the M5 and M250 and then only for combat units.

AS for what countries use to shoot any new standard of ammunition, well the M5 is an adaptation of Sig's 5.56mm MCX rifle. If it looked like 6.8mm was going to become the new NATO standard you can bet companies like FN or H&K would be doing their utmost to adopt existing designs to fire the new ammunition type, whether they start with a 7.62mm or 5.56mm weapon would be up to them.

It is certainly not a definite that 6.8mm will be the new NATO standard but it is a possibility even as small as it is now. Having a cartridge that could replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm across NATO would have some advantages, the obvious one being a single cartridge replacing two. WE would also finally have a weapon that could effectively replace the dependable FN MAG in the form of the M250, with it and any FN MAGs rechambered to 6.8mm once again having the same cartridge as a Country's service rifle.

Anyhow it is very early days at present and only time will tell.

Little J
Member
Posts: 767
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Has liked: 50 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

I'm not sure if it's true, but I read somewhere that the 70's NATO trials were written to exclude anything over 5.56. And that was why we switched from 6.25 to 4.85.

Again, not if it's true or not, but if it is, I wonder what the thinking was behind it and who decided it.

leonard
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

Somebody has just made a move and think he can win on the new Ranger rifle competition.
Is this the case of the underdog Champion who crash the competition ( GLOCK Inc. has done this many times before ) and surprise us ore this is a long shot for them.
You're opinion are welcome ?????

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1141
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 22 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

Watched the Forgotton Weapons, think a very good video from four months ago on the new US Army M5 assault rifle, a few thoughts -
Not surprised the by the news the new US Army M5 assault rifle will not be using the full powered 6.8 x 51 80,000 psi round in training with its required SS head case to take the extremely high pressure and resultant high wear on rifle, for training US Army will be using a downloaded cartridge with a standard brass cartridge assuming at approx 60,000 psi same as 7.62 NATO round, which goes against the motto "train as you mean to fight", to provide realistic training, especially those tasks that are repetitive, in order to train muscle memory so that the actions are instinctive.
M5 is not a bullpup design so only a 13" barrel to meet its LOA limit, so lowering the fps which seems to go against the rationale for the new high powered round to defeat new gen body armour : M5 weight 14 lbs and with heavier 6.6x51 ammo than 5.56, less rounds per soldier : video mention of the carbon build up, well known to be caused by use of a suppressors, plus with the hot load and/or dirty powder that doesn't burn very well (shades of jamming problems the US Army had with the M16 in Vietnam when they changed from IMR extruded powder to ball powder as it was cheaper), in extreme target shooting well known that carbon is a cancer to barrel's accuracy.


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I think the Jury is out until front line units have had the M5 for a period of time and developed a list of issues in their feedback. I am sure Sig Sauer will be more than happy to correct any issues they can, and the US Army will also expect things to go wrong with the introduction of a new service rifle in the hand of ordinary grunts. As mentioned, the M16 famously had some serious issues on its introduction into service. On top of a new rifle and LMG the US Army is going to have to reorganise the way it operates its infantry to take advantage of the new 6.8mm round, which will also take time. This is why us not needing to really start looking for a new service rifle to replace the L85 until the end of the decade puts us in a good position as the M5 should have been just about sorted by then. In addition, the slow cogs of NATO administration should have begun slowly turning to see if the new US round could and/or should become the new NATO standard, replacing both the 5.56mm and 7,62mm, or not.

Post Reply