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: 20 Jan 2023, 11:33
mrclark303 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 23:38 I'm personally sure it will be a design based on AR ergonomics
It would seem that someone at the MoD has an AR15 agenda.
mrclark303 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 23:38 all the controls fall naturally to hand and in my opinion, can't be beaten.
That's debatable, (off the top of my head) the acr, Arx160, Bren 2, Grot, hk433 and xcr (except its left side only charging handle) all have better controls
I haven't used any of the others, so I can't comment, but I have some years experience with various AR platforms.

it appears ( googling them) most at least use elements of the AR control group, with the exception of rear charging.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote: 11 Jan 2023, 23:33 What I would like to know is the justification for the purchase of a new rifle for the Rangers.
Lighter-weight, more COTS options for equipment, options for longer/shorter barrels, options to share components across section DMR, more ally-ness.

I'm not putting down the SA80, but there are plenty of reasons why we could move away from it. I think the A3 is a good improvement but has come too late in many minds.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

Little J wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 11:33
mrclark303 wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 23:38 I'm personally sure it will be a design based on AR ergonomics
It would seem that someone at the MoD has an AR15 agenda.
Pros and cons, the SA80 brings the advantage of its bullpup configuration with its compactness over the traditional AR15 platform allowing longer barrel for same LOA, so as you say "someone at the MoD has an AR15 agenda"
Little J wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 12:37
I've said it before and i have yet to see anything to change my views, i see both the 6.5 and 6.8 as 762 replacements and only as 762 replacements (DMR and SAW/GPMG).

If NATO replaces 556 as its standard round, something like 6mm ARC would be better suited and worthy of further investment and development
Do agree the 264 USA and the 6.8 x 51 are full powered rounds replacements for the 7.62, weigh too much and appear too powerful for infantry to fire in full auto assault rifles, noticable the US Army contracts to date for its new 6.8 x 51 ammo the rounds were substantially downloaded.

As to the replacement of the 5.56 either with the 6mm ARC or the 6.5mm Grendel good options, both based on the AK-47 7.62 x 39 case with its relatively small dia. head so not that much larger than the 5.56, and should be controllable in full auto, the Grendel larger 6.5mm calibre brings with it a better ballistic coefficient than achievable with a 6mm bullet

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Ron5 »

Little J wrote: 19 Jan 2023, 20:25 Quite possibly... Are soldier systems dot net too?
What do you mean "quite possibly"? Drummond states he is an FN lobbyist on his twitter feed.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

RunningStrong wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 13:37
whitelancer wrote: 11 Jan 2023, 23:33 What I would like to know is the justification for the purchase of a new rifle for the Rangers.
Lighter-weight, more COTS options for equipment, options for longer/shorter barrels, options to share components across section DMR, more ally-ness.

I'm not putting down the SA80, but there are plenty of reasons why we could move away from it. I think the A3 is a good improvement but has come too late in many minds.
6.8x51mm is certainly an interesting choice and takes us back to 1960 again in infantry thinking, specifically marksmanship and taking down 'targets' at distance....

I suppose the new all singing and dancing optics the US is rolling out on the Sig will make even an avarage infantry soldier a good deal more lethal on the battlefield.

Some of the claims made regarding the optic system have to be seen to be believed, or so I'm told anyway.

Accurate aimed fire at distance, against 'fire for effect'.

The great limitation of 5.56 is it's limited effectiveness at range, watch 5.56mm tracer let rip in a stiff cross wind and see just how useless it is over 300 metres as the energy bleeds away and the light bullet looses the ability to fight off the cross wind.

Rounds curving, circling and deflecting like a red arrows display! Basically hitting everything but the bloody target....

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mr.fred »

mrclark303 wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 15:05 The great limitation of 5.56 is it's limited effectiveness at range, watch 5.56mm tracer let rip in a stiff cross wind and see just how useless it is over 300 metres as the energy bleeds away and the light bullet looses the ability to fight off the cross wind.
There's a vicious rumour kicking around that initial requirements for a DMR were amply filled by the LSW. The requirements were then adjusted to get a nice ally 7.62mm.
Certainly there are precision rifle matches with 5.56mm being used out to 600m range:
https://quanticoshootingclub.com/range- ... atch-556mm

Although the difference between a short and long barrel might have something to do with it as well.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Timmymagic

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

mr.fred wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 15:58
mrclark303 wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 15:05 The great limitation of 5.56 is it's limited effectiveness at range, watch 5.56mm tracer let rip in a stiff cross wind and see just how useless it is over 300 metres as the energy bleeds away and the light bullet looses the ability to fight off the cross wind.
There's a vicious rumour kicking around that initial requirements for a DMR were amply filled by the LSW. The requirements were then adjusted to get a nice ally 7.62mm.
Certainly there are precision rifle matches with 5.56mm being used out to 600m range:
https://quanticoshootingclub.com/range- ... atch-556mm

Although the difference between a short and long barrel might have something to do with it as well.
Absolutely 600 meters is quite doable, but not on a very blustery day! It will go all the to 900 plus, but we're it hits is a real roll the dice affair, on target, 20 feet to the left or right, or above!
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

Ron5 wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 14:58
What do you mean "quite possibly"? Drummond states he is an FN lobbyist on his twitter feed.
What I mean is, I didn't look and even if I did, I don't really give a cobblers :D

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

mr.fred wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 15:58
mrclark303 wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 15:05 The great limitation of 5.56 is it's limited effectiveness at range, watch 5.56mm tracer let rip in a stiff cross wind and see just how useless it is over 300 metres as the energy bleeds away and the light bullet looses the ability to fight off the cross wind.
There's a vicious rumour kicking around that initial requirements for a DMR were amply filled by the LSW. The requirements were then adjusted to get a nice ally 7.62mm.
Certainly there are precision rifle matches with 5.56mm being used out to 600m range:
https://quanticoshootingclub.com/range- ... atch-556mm

Although the difference between a short and long barrel might have something to do with it as well.
Haven't the L129's now switched to 6.5 Creedmoor?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

mrclark303 wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 15:05 The great limitation of 5.56 is it's limited effectiveness at range, watch 5.56mm tracer let rip in a stiff cross wind and see just how useless it is over 300 metres as the energy bleeds away and the light bullet looses the ability to fight off the cross wind.

Rounds curving, circling and deflecting like a red arrows display! Basically hitting everything but the bloody target....
Wasn't the claim that the SA80A3 is now effective by a single rifleman at 600m? (Where's the A2 was 300m for a rifleman and 600m for a section)

Perhaps the nuance is in accuracy and suppressing fire.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

RunningStrong wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 13:37
whitelancer wrote: 11 Jan 2023, 23:33 What I would like to know is the justification for the purchase of a new rifle for the Rangers.
Lighter-weight, more COTS options for equipment, options for longer/shorter barrels, options to share components across section DMR, more ally-ness.

I'm not putting down the SA80, but there are plenty of reasons why we could move away from it. I think the A3 is a good improvement but has come too late in many minds.
The A3 squeezes another 10 years out of the rifle as bodies had started to have failing welds and twisting and bowing. HK are producing new A3 bodies for the rebuild.

The only original parts left is the refurbished TMH!

One of the best things about AR's is the ease of swapping out barrels. For formations like the Rangers, unit armourers are quite capable of swapping out barrels to modify rifles for specific missions.

I'm not sure if that's actually allowed at unit level within 'special forces', but it's simplicity itself in practice....

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

mrclark303 wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 19:05 One of the best things about AR's is the ease of swapping out barrels. For formations like the Rangers, unit armourers are quite capable of swapping out barrels to modify rifles for specific missions.

I'm not sure if that's actually allowed at unit level within 'special forces', but it's simplicity itself in practice....
Why waste time swapping barrels? An ex US sf soldier on YouTube said they were issued an M4 A1 sopmod 2 and a MK18 upper (he said they called them "Shorties").

Unless you're using an LMT, swapping barrels is a bit long winded in comparison.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

Little J wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 20:31
mrclark303 wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 19:05 One of the best things about AR's is the ease of swapping out barrels. For formations like the Rangers, unit armourers are quite capable of swapping out barrels to modify rifles for specific missions.

I'm not sure if that's actually allowed at unit level within 'special forces', but it's simplicity itself in practice....
Why waste time swapping barrels? An ex US sf soldier on YouTube said they were issued an M4 A1 sopmod 2 and a MK18 upper (he said they called them "Shorties").

Unless you're using an LMT, swapping barrels is a bit long winded in comparison.
Evening, certainly not to be swapped in the field, but swapping an AR barrel is literally a 10 minute bench job with the tools.

So a unit armourer, could mission configure rifles for the job, if necessary.

I don't know if a rifles been down selected for the Rangers yet, I would assume the excellent Colt Canada offerings, might as well just add to the RM and SF order book really...

I wonder what the Army will be using by 2040??
That's one I really wouldn't bet on, it's going to be 6.8, as we will be in lockstep with Uncle Sam and NATO.

As the US is apparently keeping a duel standard ammo system of 5.56mm/6.8mm, to allow M4 issue to second line troops for decades to come, with the 6.8 Sig going to war fighters, it allows the possibility that other NATO countries can stay with 5.56 for many years yet.

I have heard there are currently six rifles in the works by the usual suspects, chambered in the new calibre, all reworks of existing designs.

I'm sure there will be 'many more' coming soon.

Bullpup has become less important with 6.8x51mm, it allows for very high velocity and excellent accuracy out of a short barrel apparently.... I would love to see that proven to me on the range though, I have my doubts.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 00:15 Bullpup has become less important with 6.8x51mm, it allows for very high velocity and excellent accuracy out of a short barrel apparently.... I would love to see that proven to me on the range though, I have my doubts.
Why 6.8 and not 6.5?

Ballistically the 6.5mm is superior.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:10
mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 00:15 Bullpup has become less important with 6.8x51mm, it allows for very high velocity and excellent accuracy out of a short barrel apparently.... I would love to see that proven to me on the range though, I have my doubts.
Why 6.8 and not 6.5?

Ballistically the 6.5mm is superior.
Why indeed, it's 6.8 because that's what Uncle Sam selected, it's that simple really....

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

RunningStrong wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 18:46
mrclark303 wrote: 20 Jan 2023, 15:05 The great limitation of 5.56 is it's limited effectiveness at range, watch 5.56mm tracer let rip in a stiff cross wind and see just how useless it is over 300 metres as the energy bleeds away and the light bullet looses the ability to fight off the cross wind.

Rounds curving, circling and deflecting like a red arrows display! Basically hitting everything but the bloody target....
Wasn't the claim that the SA80A3 is now effective by a single rifleman at 600m? (Where's the A2 was 300m for a rifleman and 600m for a section)

Perhaps the nuance is in accuracy and suppressing fire.
I haven't heard that claim, to be clear, all the A3 really consists of is a new receiver and keylock forend.

The receiver has been marginally improved in construction, with a full length picatinny rail, seamlessly integrated with the rail of the forend.

Basically, it's exactly the same rifle from a mechanical perspective, with the same limitations.

5.56mm is in reality only accurate to 300 meters, additional accurate range is only possible on a still day. If we are talking fire for effect, then yes, a beaten area stretching out to 600 meters and further.

It's a simple unsurmountable issue of a very small high velocity round that lacks the mass to retain energy and accuracy at distance..

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:19 Why indeed, it's 6.8 because that's what Uncle Sam selected, it's that simple really....
The difference isn’t enough to worry about but the 6.5 is inherently more accurate and would penetrate better with the increased sectional density.

IMO the 338 Norma magnum would have been the perfect replacement for the 7.62x51. It occupies a sweet spot between range, accuracy and retained energy at beyond 1000m.

Ballistically the 6.5 Grendel is also a ‘Goldilocks’ option but the case dimensions are suboptimal for sustained firing through automatic weapons. Effectively it’s too short and fat with insufficient body taper and the shoulder angle is also too aggressive.

Supersizing the 5.56 case to equal the Grendel case capacity and necking it up to 6.5 is an obvious solution but why would anyone want to do something so simple and straightforward?

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:44
mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:19 Why indeed, it's 6.8 because that's what Uncle Sam selected, it's that simple really....
The difference isn’t enough to worry about but the 6.5 is inherently more accurate and would penetrate better with the increased sectional density.

IMO the 338 Norma magnum would have been the perfect replacement for the 7.62x51. It occupies a sweet spot between range, accuracy and retained energy at beyond 1000m.

Ballistically the 6.5 Grendel is also a ‘Goldilocks’ option but the case dimensions are suboptimal for sustained firing through automatic weapons. Effectively it’s too short and fat with insufficient body taper and the shoulder angle is also too aggressive.

Supersizing the 5.56 case to equal the Grendel case capacity and necking it up to 6.5 is an obvious solution but why would anyone want to do something so simple and straightforward?
I totally agree, 6.5 is absolutely the sweet spot in the range v carrying capacity equation, it's a hard round to argue against.

Oddly, Uncle Sam decided to reinvent the wheel and came up with the incredibly high pressure, 6.8x51 duel material round....

It's an odd choice, but just like 7.62x51mm in the 50's, Uncle Sam chooses the cartridge and everyone gets in step.

We are where we are and we will need to pick a rifle to utilise it in the next 10 years....

Interesting to see who comes up with what...

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:28 I haven't heard that claim, to be clear, all the A3 really consists of is a new receiver and keylock forend.
And a floating barrel. So bit more than that...
mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:28 5.56mm is in reality only accurate to 300 meters, additional accurate range is only possible on a still day. If we are talking fire for effect, then yes, a beaten area stretching out to 600 meters and further.
That's not true in the slightest. And that's from experience of both 5.56 and 7.62.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:28
I haven't heard that claim, to be clear, all the A3 really consists of is a new receiver and keylock forend.
I'm assuming you mean Keymod? The original A3 didn't have that, it had Hkeymod (coz HK have to do everything the hard way :crazy: ). After wasting a year or so and some user trials, the MoD got their heads out of their arses and switched to a slightly better designed handguard featuring MLok (that switch was made 2 years ago for reference).

As RunningStrong has said, the new handguard also allowed the barrel to be free floated, which added a small accuracy improvement.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 12:58 That's not true in the slightest. And that's from experience of both 5.56 and 7.62.
Which part isn’t true?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 14:36
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 12:58 That's not true in the slightest. And that's from experience of both 5.56 and 7.62.
Which part isn’t true?
The bit I quoted...

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 12:58
mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:28 I haven't heard that claim, to be clear, all the A3 really consists of is a new receiver and keylock forend.
And a floating barrel. So bit more than that...
mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:28 5.56mm is in reality only accurate to 300 meters, additional accurate range is only possible on a still day. If we are talking fire for effect, then yes, a beaten area stretching out to 600 meters and further.
That's not true in the slightest. And that's from experience of both 5.56 and 7.62.


Snap..... Lots of experience with both calibers, we will have to agree to disagree.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 18:33 Snap..... Lots of experience with both calibers, we will have to agree to disagree.
You disagree with the US department for defence and army technical manual, both quoted at stating effective range of 602 yards in a 20" barrel.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

Little J wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 13:56
mrclark303 wrote: 21 Jan 2023, 11:28
I haven't heard that claim, to be clear, all the A3 really consists of is a new receiver and keylock forend.
I'm assuming you mean Keymod? The original A3 didn't have that, it had Hkeymod (coz HK have to do everything the hard way :crazy: ). After wasting a year or so and some user trials, the MoD got their heads out of their arses and switched to a slightly better designed handguard featuring MLok (that switch was made 2 years ago for reference).

As RunningStrong has said, the new handguard also allowed the barrel to be free floated, which added a small accuracy improvement.
Yep, sorry keymod....

I don't think (and haven't seen) the slightest noticeable difference in accuracy between the A2 and A3, it's all semantics really..

We might also add it's fractionally lighter than the A2....

Let's get real with accuracy, 5.56mm is accurate in all weathers to 300 meters, after that in strong cross winds, it's progressively and quickly 'dramatically effected', you only need to watch tracer to see quite how much. It can (and will) change course dramatically and unpredictably in strong winds.

It's simple physics really, it's a light small calibre high velocity bullet, it bleeds energy away and lacks the necessary mass to retain its trajectory at range.

Post Reply