Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

Little J wrote: 18 Mar 2023, 15:06
mrclark303 wrote: 18 Mar 2023, 11:31 The simple fact is Uncle Sam is the NATO piper and we all follow the piper....

6.8 X 51mm has been adopted and we all will eventually follow suit....
And how many of those NATO countries will remember the US 762 / M14 bs and think "nah, lets wait a while and see it get dumped to a DMR role"?

As an aside... The M5 got rebranded the M7, for anyone that missed it
Time will tell I guess, but the US is going full steam ahead with M5/7 .. probably M8 before it reaches service, it's still being tweaked....

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Once the M7 is firmly established in the US Army's fighting units, other Small Arms manufacturers will design and bring out their own weapons in that calibre. Companies like FN and H&K should be quick off the mark assuming they are not already developing weapons that use the new US rounds. Colt Canada will be in a bit of a tough place as their output is basically improved AR-15s, and I d not know if that weapon can be rechambered to fire the new round without basically producing a totally new weapon.

As for European production, well the French and Germans are just introducing new 5.56mm rifles' it will be some time before their domestic users will be looking for another new rifle. I have a strong feeling we are going to be the first European users of the 6.8, and for simplicities sake we might as well adopt the M7 as by then it will have been in US service for at least a decade and most of the bugs should have been fixed. I can see Sig setting up a European production centre for the M7, and if we are lucky and choose the M7 we might having it established in the UK.

As for the performance of the 6.8 verses the 7.62, one of the prime requirements for the US Army was the ability of the round to penetrate the latest Russian Body Armour as a set range, something standard 7.62 rounds could not do. From what I have read the 6.8 had superior performance to the 7.62 in the majority of tests which is why that calibre was selected for the new weapon system. For once I think the US Army got its procurement system right, evaluating an intermediate calibre that would be superior t 7.62 as well as lighter and then developing the ammunition and related rifle to use it.

The next decider will be whether the .338 Norma Magnum LMG will begin to replace the M240 in certain roles as well as the Browning M2. One advantage will be that an RWS could replace its 12.7mm M2 with and .338 LMG and 40mm AGL giving the user a better option when laying down suppressive fire or engaging light AFVs. IT would probably generate interest from the British Army as we already use that round, be it in small quantities with our snipers. The M250 would be an ideal replacement for the Minimi as it is lighter than the L7 but has a bigger bang plus a suppressor to help the Soldiers hearing. I wonder if our SF will get their hands on both the M7 and M250 to play with? That should give the Army a good hands on verdict on the weapon systems, though we have has Army personnel embedded in the US Army programme that resulted in the M7 and M250 for a number of years, so we should already have a fair amount of data on the two weapons.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

Lord Jim wrote: 19 Mar 2023, 20:20 Once the M7 is firmly established in the US Army's fighting units, other Small Arms manufacturers will design and bring out their own weapons in that calibre. Companies like FN and H&K should be quick off the mark assuming they are not already developing weapons that use the new US rounds. Colt Canada will be in a bit of a tough place as their output is basically improved AR-15s, and I d not know if that weapon can be rechambered to fire the new round without basically producing a totally new weapon.
Agreed other Companies will be looking to produce (they'd be mad not to), but they will also be very weary of this being another flash-in-the-pan adoption by the Yanks. The 6.8 is 762 sized, so Colt Canada adapting the C7/8 is not an option, luckily they do have their new C20 DMR
Lord Jim wrote: 19 Mar 2023, 20:20 As for European production, well the French and Germans are just introducing new 5.56mm rifles' it will be some time before their domestic users will be looking for another new rifle. I have a strong feeling we are going to be the first European users of the 6.8, and for simplicities sake we might as well adopt the M7 as by then it will have been in US service for at least a decade and most of the bugs should have been fixed. I can see Sig setting up a European production centre for the M7, and if we are lucky and choose the M7 we might having it established in the UK.
Sig still has their Swiss operation don't they? Curious why they would want to come here for one (lets be realistic) small contract. Also curious about the copyright of the 6.8, would RG have to pay Sig for every bit of ammo produced?
Lord Jim wrote: 19 Mar 2023, 20:20 As for the performance of the 6.8 verses the 7.62, one of the prime requirements for the US Army was the ability of the round to penetrate the latest Russian Body Armour as a set range, something standard 7.62 rounds could not do. From what I have read the 6.8 had superior performance to the 7.62 in the majority of tests which is why that calibre was selected for the new weapon system. For once I think the US Army got its procurement system right, evaluating an intermediate calibre that would be superior t 7.62 as well as lighter and then developing the ammunition and related rifle to use it.
Ignoring the Russian body armour ( coz the Russians have ignored giving it to their troops :wave: ), I'm still in favour of a proper test with 6.8, 6.5 Creedmoor and anything else that's kicking about before NATO blindly follows the Yanks again.
Lord Jim wrote: 19 Mar 2023, 20:20 The next decider will be whether the .338 Norma Magnum LMG will begin to replace the M240 in certain roles as well as the Browning M2. One advantage will be that an RWS could replace its 12.7mm M2 with and .338 LMG and 40mm AGL giving the user a better option when laying down suppressive fire or engaging light AFVs. IT would probably generate interest from the British Army as we already use that round, be it in small quantities with our snipers. The M250 would be an ideal replacement for the Minimi as it is lighter than the L7 but has a bigger bang plus a suppressor to help the Soldiers hearing. I wonder if our SF will get their hands on both the M7 and M250 to play with? That should give the Army a good hands on verdict on the weapon systems, though we have has Army personnel embedded in the US Army programme that resulted in the M7 and M250 for a number of years, so we should already have a fair amount of data on the two weapons.
The 338 MG I do like, but again like the 762 replacement, it needs a proper NATO competition of whatever is out there first.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote: 19 Mar 2023, 20:20
As for European production…
I am not convinced that Euro nations are going to be willing to trash entire capabilities and calibres at a US request especially when the new calibre is so controversial.
As for the performance of the 6.8 verses the 7.62, one of the prime requirements for the US Army was the ability of the round to penetrate the latest Russian Body Armour as a set range, something standard 7.62 rounds could not do. From what I have read the 6.8 had superior performance to the 7.62 in the majority of tests which is why that calibre was selected for the new weapon system.
Its replacing 5.56 not necessarily 7.62.

The 6.8X51 round is unsuited to belt fed weapons due to high chamber pressures.

If piecing body armour is the ultimate concern then surely projectile design is more important than driving bullets faster. What happens when the next-gen body armour defeats 6.8x51?

Ballistically a 6mm or 6.5mm projectile in the X51 case will piece body armour better than the 6.8mm with identical chamber pressures. Penetration and kinetic energy on target are not the same thing. Long for calibre VLD bullets with high sectional density driven as fast as possible are what is needed to penetrate body armour. Ensuring the projectile does not deform is crucial which is why projectile design is so important.

It is entirely possible that a 6mm or 6.5mm calibre could outperform the 6.8X51 with less recoil and lower chamber pressures IF penetration is the primary concern.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Little J wrote: 20 Mar 2023, 19:11 I'm still in favour of a proper test with 6.8, 6.5 Creedmoor and anything else that's kicking about before NATO blindly follows the Yanks again.
IMO the creedmoor is still too large. It’s very similar to the x51 case in terms of recoil.

The sweet spot is above Grendel and below Creedmore. The 6X47 lapua or 6.5X47 lapua is pretty optimal for a controllable long range intermediate cartridge that will feed reliably.
The 338 MG I do like, but again like the 762 replacement, it needs a proper NATO competition of whatever is out there first.
The .338 GM (.338 Norma Magnum) is absolutely the right choice to replace the 7.62X51. A massive performance enhancement with no drawbacks apart from weight of ammo.

It would also be very useful in the marksman role as the performance when compared to the .338 Lapua is very similar.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 21 Mar 2023, 13:34
Little J wrote: 20 Mar 2023, 19:11
The 338 MG I do like, but again like the 762 replacement, it needs a proper NATO competition of whatever is out there first.
The .338 GM (.338 Norma Magnum) is absolutely the right choice to replace the 7.62X51. A massive performance enhancement with no drawbacks apart from weight of ammo.
Puzzled as to why say the 338 Norma is the right choice to replace the 7.62, the 338 is a much bigger beast with near twice the muzzle energy of the 7.62 and the ammo would easily be twice the weight if not more as well as requiring a heavier machine guns/barrels to absorb the much heavier recoil and the much higher heat generated. The 338 uses a 300 gr bullet while NATO 7.62 usually a 147 gr bullet, and you can just as easily manufacture lighter polymer cased ammo in 7.62 as 338 to reduce weight.

The natural choice to replace the 7.62 is the 6.8x51, not saying might not be a need for a 338 machine gun but it comes with the very big disadvantage of a big increase in weight which for infantry would have thought a big no no, thinking Falklands.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

NickC wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 11:31 Puzzled as to why say the 338 Norma is the right choice to replace the 7.62,
First things first…why change anything? Is it really a priority and are the alternatives really game changers or merely incremental improvements?

The 5.56 was clearly deficient in Afghan were longer ranges were the norm but can the same be said of the 7.62? Absolutely not.

Conversely was .50 OTT? Absolutely yes. The .338 Norma or Lapua is ballistically superior to .50 within normal ranges for anything that doesn’t need to be hit with a 600gr bullet.

By replacing 7.62X51 with 6.8X51 you have two rounds will appear practically indistinguishable in normal use. The differences are minimal within 400m. At what range is the 7.62 really not able to penetrate body armour when the 6.8X51 is capable? Could a simple projectile change mitigate this “window” in the ballistic arc to a negligible level?

So all things considered IMO the 6.5X47 lapua (with an 100gr bullet and a chamber pressure around 61,000 psi) and .338 GM (Norma magnum) would be the perfect combination for NATO albeit not a priority in the current security climate and budgetary constraints.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 13:48 The 5.56 was clearly deficient in Afghan
I'm not sure that is as certain as you think it is.

The 7.62mm is essentially a machine gun round tweaked to be usable in a rifle backed by a mindset brought up on the myths of the war of independence. So an ideal machine gun round would be bigger and an ideal rifle round would be smaller. Which I realise is pretty much in line with your conclusion.
It gets a little more confusing when one wants to issue an automatic weapon to infantry sections. Is that a machine gun? Are machine guns still used in the way they were when the 30-06 was developed or the 7.62 derived from that?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

The holy grail as far as infantry sections go is to have one round for both the assault and support weapon allowing for better logistics in the field but this has its problems in terms of size of assault rife and range of support weapon

However as we move back to the idea of fighting in Europe's forests and towns 5.56 comes back into play

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 11:40 The holy grail as far as infantry sections go is to have one round for both the assault and support weapon allowing for better logistics in the field but this has its problems in terms of size of assault rife and range of support weapon

However as we move back to the idea of fighting in Europe's forests and towns 5.56 comes back into play
We can debate the rights and wrongs of various calibers all day long.

What it comes down to is really simple, Uncle Sam (the founder of the feast) has decided on 6.8x 51mm and that's that....

That's the new calibre for those NATO and Western aligned countries wishing to keep in step.

So now, it's time for the British Armed forces to select a design in the new calibre, keeping our various Colt Canada AR's as the alternative 5.56mm firearms, were needed.

I would suggest just adopting the US rifle, let Uncle Sam work out the kinks a bit longer and buy in quantity off the shelf along with the advanced optics and the Sig MG.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mr.fred »

mrclark303 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 14:46 So now, it's time for the British Armed forces to select a design in the new calibre, keeping our various Colt Canada AR's as the alternative 5.56mm firearms, were needed.
I'd wait for after the US army has adopted the new round, plus several years' worth of using it, before thinking about adopting it.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Little J

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

Yep 5.56 is going to be around for some time to come however 6.8 could be a good round for both the infantry assault and support weapon with the 12.7mm remaining as the vehicle mounted support weapon

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

mrclark303 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 14:46 What it comes down to is really simple, Uncle Sam (the founder of the feast) has decided on 6.8x 51mm and that's that....

That's the new calibre for those NATO and Western aligned countries wishing to keep in step.

So now, it's time for the British Armed forces to select a design in the new calibre, keeping our various Colt Canada AR's as the alternative 5.56mm firearms, were needed.
You might want to hold your horse there... The US and rifle/ammo adoption hardly ever works out as expected.
These users liked the author Little J for the post:
mr.fred

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

Little J wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 17:28
mrclark303 wrote: 26 Mar 2023, 14:46 What it comes down to is really simple, Uncle Sam (the founder of the feast) has decided on 6.8x 51mm and that's that....

That's the new calibre for those NATO and Western aligned countries wishing to keep in step.

So now, it's time for the British Armed forces to select a design in the new calibre, keeping our various Colt Canada AR's as the alternative 5.56mm firearms, were needed.
You might want to hold your horse there... The US and rifle/ammo adoption hardly ever works out as expected.
Normally I would agree, but this has gone the distance and its actually underway and in production, with a new rifle and MG.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mr.fred »

mrclark303 wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 19:12 Normally I would agree, but this has gone the distance and its actually underway and in production, with a new rifle and MG.
M14 and M60, anyone?

Give it a few years.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

mrclark303 wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 19:12 Normally I would agree, but this has gone the distance and its actually underway and in production, with a new rifle and MG.
Not sure I agree with "gone the distance". At the moment the M7 hasn't even gone as far as the Mk16 did in replacing the M4.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

mr.fred wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 23:18
mrclark303 wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 19:12 Normally I would agree, but this has gone the distance and its actually underway and in production, with a new rifle and MG.
M14 and M60, anyone?

Give it a few years.
These are different days, the M14 was always a folly and to be fair the M60 remained GI for decades.

This system has gone much further than any previous proposed replacement.

It's a new caliber, new rifle / MG and perhaps more importantly, it has a sighing system that's potentially a revolutionary battlefield changer.

It's a military 'system' if you like, far more than a sum of its parts.

Most importantly, it's not replacing the M4, it's only replacing it at the tip of the spear. All shiney arses, (rear echelon types) will still be equipped with the M4 for decades to come.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

mr.fred wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 23:18
mrclark303 wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 19:12 Normally I would agree, but this has gone the distance and its actually underway and in production, with a new rifle and MG.
M14 and M60, anyone?

Give it a few years.
The semi-auto M14 had a very short life before being found totally unsuitable for Vietnam, the M60 lasted to the 90's before being replaced by the M240, but the 7.62x51 ammo has lasted and become a standard. Would expect the with US Army's influence the 6.8x51 will gradually replace the 7.62.

Leaves open the question which version of the 6.8x51, expect costs will have a big influence.

a) The standard pressure brass cartridge case round, in current production with only very minor mods required at the US Army's 3,900 acre plant, Lake City Ammunition Plant.
b) The Sig Sauer/US Army very high pressure round with its stainless steel head required to take the high pressures that brass not able to and with the main case body still in brass, looks expensive as semi-new plant will be required and cartridge case body can no longer be stamped out of a single piece of brass.
c) Polymer case brings with it big advantages in that it can take the high pressures and approx. 30% lower in weight, disadvantage new plant required, though certainly feasible as the private company True Velocity have proved in the US.
These users liked the author NickC for the post:
mrclark303

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

NickC wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 12:29
mr.fred wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 23:18
mrclark303 wrote: 27 Mar 2023, 19:12 Normally I would agree, but this has gone the distance and its actually underway and in production, with a new rifle and MG.
M14 and M60, anyone?

Give it a few years.
The semi-auto M14 had a very short life before being found totally unsuitable for Vietnam, the M60 lasted to the 90's before being replaced by the M240, but the 7.62x51 ammo has lasted and become a standard. Would expect the with US Army's influence the 6.8x51 will gradually replace the 7.62.

Leaves open the question which version of the 6.8x51, expect costs will have a big influence.

a) The standard pressure brass cartridge case round, in current production with only very minor mods required at the US Army's 3,900 acre plant, Lake City Ammunition Plant.
b) The Sig Sauer/US Army very high pressure round with its stainless steel head required to take the high pressures that brass not able to and with the main case body still in brass, looks expensive as semi-new plant will be required and cartridge case body can no longer be stamped out of a single piece of brass.
c) Polymer case brings with it big advantages in that it can take the high pressures and approx. 30% lower in weight, disadvantage new plant required, though certainly feasible as the private company True Velocity have proved in the US.
Certainly the two part case ammunition is going to be expensive to manufacture....

The beauty of the British position is we have thousands of AR's in service ( steadily replacing the A3 at the tip of the spear) , plus a steady re-delivery of L85A3 rebuilds, so we can let Uncle Sam work the gremlins out of the system and then adopt the new calibre post 2030...

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

mrclark303 wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 14:36
The beauty of the British position is we have thousands of AR's in service ( steadily replacing the A3 at the tip of the spear) , plus a steady re-delivery of L85A3 rebuilds, so we can let Uncle Sam work the gremlins out of the system and then adopt the new calibre post 2030...
This article infers the replacement of the SA80 maybe rather sooner than later and presumably still 5.56 ?

https://www.army-technology.com/news/ne ... placement/

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by BB85 »

It will be interesting to see what happens, if an order for the new Ranger units is small the army will not want to deal with the logistics of the 6.8x51 ammunition.
If the US fully commits to the new round and issues it across all of their infantry units, eventually the UK will want to do the same.
I think for now the army only has budget for the Ranger units (if it has budget at all) and if by 2030 if 6.8 is adopted by the US across the board the British army will select it when the SA80 is replaced and update the Ranger units as well.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

NickC wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 15:37
mrclark303 wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 14:36
The beauty of the British position is we have thousands of AR's in service ( steadily replacing the A3 at the tip of the spear) , plus a steady re-delivery of L85A3 rebuilds, so we can let Uncle Sam work the gremlins out of the system and then adopt the new calibre post 2030...
This article infers the replacement of the SA80 maybe rather sooner than later and presumably still 5.56 ?

https://www.army-technology.com/news/ne ... placement/
We use the excellent Colt Canada AR variants.

I am sure the Rangers will just re-equip as per the Royal Marines with the same rifles, selecting something else would be just stupid. That said, when has common sense ever been involved in procurement!

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

BB85 wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 16:59 It will be interesting to see what happens, if an order for the new Ranger units is small the army will not want to deal with the logistics of the 6.8x51 ammunition.
If the US fully commits to the new round and issues it across all of their infantry units, eventually the UK will want to do the same.
I think for now the army only has budget for the Ranger units (if it has budget at all) and if by 2030 if 6.8 is adopted by the US across the board the British army will select it when the SA80 is replaced and update the Ranger units as well.
As said, I'm sure the Rangers will Just re-equip with RM issue Colt Canada AR's for now.... C7 and C8 I think???

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by sunstersun »

It depends on how game changing the optic is. If it really is gang buster aim bot, then a battle-rifle like the m5 and 6.8 ammo might be better.

The machine gun is good period.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

That prompts an interesting question, if you put the M157 optic on legacy rifles how much of an advantage does the M7 still have? Yes it's going to be a wide margin over a short barreled 556, but what about 762 (or 6.5 CM)? Would it still be worth investing in a new platform?
These users liked the author Little J for the post:
sunstersun

Post Reply