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: 29 Mar 2023, 08:20 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?
It's sort of Symantics really, 6.8mm is the way forward, out of our hands really.

The UK came out with a fantastic round in the 1950's, .280", an intermediate calibre, but towards the 'hot' end of intermediate.

It was an excellent calibre ballistically, but the Americans decided to squash .30-06" to .308 and developed 7.62 X 51mm and guess which way NATO went...

As said, the US is the founder of feast and in the absence of our ability ( or will) to actually defend ourselves, we are utterly reliant upon them.

So, 6.8x 51mm it is chaps.....

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

Little J wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 08:20 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?
Why would you buy an expensive M157 FCS/optic, it might be costing more than the M7 rifle? presume could fit on say the legacy 7.62 L129A1 rifle. For a 5.56x45 ~400 m range assault rifle, would not a relatively cheap fixed three power wide angle scope be cheaper and more suitable.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

NickC wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 14:32
Little J wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 08:20 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?
Why would you buy an expensive M157 FCS/optic, it might be costing more than the M7 rifle? presume could fit on say the legacy 7.62 L129A1 rifle. For a 5.56x45 ~400 m range assault rifle, would not a relatively cheap fixed three power wide angle scope be cheaper and more suitable.
Interesting thing about 5.56mm, it's a great calibre in regards the volume of ammunition an individual can carry and within its range limitations, but it's sadly lacking in range ballistic performance.

It's a simple matter of physics, it's a very small light bullet, so it lacks the mass and kinetic energy to retain accuracy over 400 yards, 300 plus starts to get iffy if you have a strong cross wind.

It rapidly bleeds energy and individual rounds will deflect in utterly random and rapidly changing directions with a strong wind.

I remember having this shown to me with 5.56 tracer in extremely blustery conditions, it really has to be seen to be believed.

7.62mm will shoot (minute of man) out to 700 yards and further in the same conditions... Not laser accurate, but plenty good enough for government work....

.338, well, it's an express train of a round, thundering down range with enough energy and mass to drill through wind sheer, and very little will stop it finding its mark out to extended ranges...

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by sunstersun »

mrclark303 wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 14:14
Little J wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 08:20 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?
It's sort of Symantics really, 6.8mm is the way forward, out of our hands really.

The UK came out with a fantastic round in the 1950's, .280", an intermediate calibre, but towards the 'hot' end of intermediate.

It was an excellent calibre ballistically, but the Americans decided to squash .30-06" to .308 and developed 7.62 X 51mm and guess which way NATO went...

As said, the US is the founder of feast and in the absence of our ability ( or will) to actually defend ourselves, we are utterly reliant upon them.

So, 6.8x 51mm it is chaps.....
Not a guarantee. The JCOS is an idiot, and his pet project is the NGSW. The next JCOS should focus on the Pacific and axe the army budget.

NGSW would be pretty high on the list of things to get rid of. Proceed with the optic and machine gun, everything else can chill for another decade. Maybe keep existing M7 production as testing/niche for special forces, but no general adoption. It's completely nonsense right now.
These users liked the author sunstersun for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqmrclark303

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

mrclark303 wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 16:21 It's a simple matter of physics, it's a very small light bullet, so it lacks the mass and kinetic energy to retain accuracy over 400 yards, 300 plus starts to get iffy if you have a strong cross wind.
Exactly so although not a priority, a 5.56 replacement is needed.

IMO the 6.8x51 has lots of problems not least that so many NATO countries will not adopt the Sig rifle design therefore is it really worth the hassle?

6.8mm is not a popular calibre in Europe, and ballistically it’s not special so why has the US been so fixated on from the 6.8SPC onwards?

Even if the US insist on the 6.8 calibre what can the 6.8X51 do that a 6.8 CM or 6.8X47 do at a slightly reduced range?

Depending on what US Army’s kinetic energy and penetration parameters are at a given range, the window that this can not be achieved by either the 6.8CM or 6.8X47 is likely very small. In real terms that would mean something like what the 6.8X47 can achieve at 500m, the 6.8CM can achieve at 525m the 6.8X51 can achieve at 600m if all firing the same projectile.

It would be interesting to see the penetration tests on body armour at different ranges with the different calibres mentioned. The 6.8X51 will be superior but by how much? And how much could that difference be mitigated by a change in bullet weight, propellant and projectile design whilst maintaining normal chamber pressures.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

mrclark303 wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 16:21
NickC wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 14:32
Little J wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 08:20 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?
Why would you buy an expensive M157 FCS/optic, it might be costing more than the M7 rifle? presume could fit on say the legacy 7.62 L129A1 rifle. For a 5.56x45 ~400 m range assault rifle, would not a relatively cheap fixed three power wide angle scope be cheaper and more suitable.
Interesting thing about 5.56mm, it's a great calibre in regards the volume of ammunition an individual can carry and within its range limitations, but it's sadly lacking in range ballistic performance.

It's a simple matter of physics, it's a very small light bullet, so it lacks the mass and kinetic energy to retain accuracy over 400 yards, 300 plus starts to get iffy if you have a strong cross wind.

It rapidly bleeds energy and individual rounds will deflect in utterly random and rapidly changing directions with a strong wind.

I remember having this shown to me with 5.56 tracer in extremely blustery conditions, it really has to be seen to be believed.

7.62mm will shoot (minute of man) out to 700 yards and further in the same conditions... Not laser accurate, but plenty good enough for government work....

.338, well, it's an express train of a round, thundering down range with enough energy and mass to drill through wind sheer, and very little will stop it finding its mark out to extended ranges...

As far as know the only full-on post WWII detailed statistical analysis operational research report pp105 into the effectiveness of rifle fire was carried out by the John Hopkins University for the US Army.

"CONCLUSIONS
1. The ranges at which the rifle is used most frequently in battle and the ranges within which the greater fraction of man targets can be seen on the battlefield do not exceed 300 yd.
2. Within these important battle ranges, the marksmanship of even expert riflemen is satisfactory in meeting actual battle requirements only up to 100 yd, beyond 100 yd marksmanship declines sharply, reaching a low order at 300 yd.
3. To improve hit effectiveness at the ranges not covered satisfactorily in this sense by men using the M - 1 (100 to 300 yd), the adoption of a pattern-dispersion principle in the hand weapon could partly compensate for human aiming errors and thereby significantly increase the hits at ranges up to 300 yd.
4 . Current models of fully automatic hand weapons afford neither these desirable characteristics nor adequate alternatives. Such weapons are valueless from the standpoint of increasing the number of targets hit when aiming on separated man-size targets.
5. Certain of the costly high standards of accuracy observed in the manufacture of current rifles and ammunition can be relaxed without significant losses in over-all hit effectiveness.
6 . To meet the actual operational requirements of a general purpose infantry hand weapon many possibilities are open for designs which will give desirable dispersion patterns (and accompanying increases in hit probability) at the ranges of interest. Of the .possible salvo or volley automatic designs, the small caliber, lightweight weapon with controlled dispersion characteristics appears to be a promi sing approach. (Low recoil of a small caliber weapon facilitates dispersion control.)
7. To create militarily acceptable wound damage at common battle ranges, missiles of smaller caliber than the present standard .30 caliber can be used without loss in wounding effects and with substantial logistical and over-all military gains.
8. A very great increase in hit lethality can be effected by the addition of toxic agents to bullet missiles."

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the Ordnance Corps proceed to determine the design or technological feasibility of developing a hand weapon which has the characteristics cited in this analysis, namely:
a. Maximum hit effectiveness against man targets within 300 yd range. (This does not mean that 'the weapon will be ineffective beyond this range.)
b. Small caliber (less than . 30).
c. Wounding capability up to 300 yd at least equivalent to the present rifle.
d. Dispersion of rounds from salvos or bursts controlled so as to form a pattern such that aiming errors up to 300 yd will be partly compensated, and hit effectiveness thereby increased for these ranges.
2. As one possible alternative to the current "volume of fire 11 (fully automatic) approach to the problem of increasing the effective firepower of infantry riflemen, it is recommended-subject to tentative confirmation of design feasibility-that a rifle incorporating at least in principle the military characteristics here proposed be manufactured for further and conclusive test. "

Think the conclusions have stood the test of time very well. Its not a "simple matter of physics and sadly lacking in range ballistic performance", the report makes it clear that's not a priority but "Dispersion of rounds from salvos or bursts controlled so as to form a pattern such that aiming errors up to 300 yd will be partly compensated, and hit effectiveness thereby increased for these ranges." the report conclusions appears to mirror the Wehrmacht Grenadier assault platoons use of the StG 45 with the 7.92x33 on the Eastern front though severely limited in numbers of rifles or ammo.

Do agree the 5.56x45 not the best choice but as said its a fait accompli and with the great advantage of light weight allowing high volume of fire.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0000346

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 10:56
mrclark303 wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 16:21 It's a simple matter of physics, it's a very small light bullet, so it lacks the mass and kinetic energy to retain accuracy over 400 yards, 300 plus starts to get iffy if you have a strong cross wind.
Exactly so although not a priority, a 5.56 replacement is needed.

IMO the 6.8x51 has lots of problems not least that so many NATO countries will not adopt the Sig rifle design therefore is it really worth the hassle?

6.8mm is not a popular calibre in Europe, and ballistically it’s not special so why has the US been so fixated on from the 6.8SPC onwards?

Even if the US insist on the 6.8 calibre what can the 6.8X51 do that a 6.8 CM or 6.8X47 do at a slightly reduced range?

Depending on what US Army’s kinetic energy and penetration parameters are at a given range, the window that this can not be achieved by either the 6.8CM or 6.8X47 is likely very small. In real terms that would mean something like what the 6.8X47 can achieve at 500m, the 6.8CM can achieve at 525m the 6.8X51 can achieve at 600m if all firing the same projectile.

It would be interesting to see the penetration tests on body armour at different ranges with the different calibres mentioned. The 6.8X51 will be superior but by how much? And how much could that difference be mitigated by a change in bullet weight, propellant and projectile design whilst maintaining normal chamber pressures.
The choice is quite simple really, stick with 5.56mm or go with 6.8X51mm. Both calibres will be NATO standard.

Rifle design is of course down to the individual countries, by 2030 there will be a good selection available, as the manufacturers scramble to the marketplace.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 11:40 Think the conclusions have stood the test of time very well.
Until the army started fighting in places other than Europe.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 15:08
NickC wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 11:40 Think the conclusions have stood the test of time very well.
Until the army started fighting in places other than Europe.
To a point but the average infantry man will still be a average shot at 300 meters by this I mean his grouping will be the size of a dinner plate with 5.56 this was a bit better with the old 7.62 SLR

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

mrclark303 wrote:
The choice is quite simple really, stick with 5.56mm or go with 6.8X51mm. Both calibres will be NATO standard.

Rifle design is of course down to the individual countries, by 2030 there will be a good selection available, as the manufacturers scramble to the marketplace.
You're assuming the rest of NATO rolls over like they have in the past. While likely (if the Septics don't ditch it), it's not guaranteed.
And if there is a "fair" NATO competition, who's to say it goes the 6.8's way.

The new case is patented by Sig, how many companies (or even countries) are going to want to pay Sig for the right to make it?

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mr.fred »

mrclark303 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 13:51 The choice is quite simple really, stick with 5.56mm or go with 6.8X51mm. Both calibres will be NATO standard.
5.56 mm it is then, with 7.62mm in support.

Consider 6.8 after it's has proven itself and the US seems to be keeping it in service
mrclark303 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 13:51 Rifle design is of course down to the individual countries, by 2030 there will be a good selection available, as the manufacturers scramble to the marketplace.
I think that we'll see more rifles adaptable to multiple calibres, derived from 7.62mm designs already in production.

I really don't see 6.8 barrel burner as revolutionary or a sure thing.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

mrclark303 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 13:51 The choice is quite simple really, stick with 5.56mm or go with 6.8X51mm. Both calibres will be NATO standard.
You seem very sure but I am much less convinced.

What if the European NATO countries come up with their own intermediate cartridge preference? The European grouping is getting bigger and bigger.

If a fair test is conducted the 6.8mm won’t win, either 6.5mm or 7mm is ballistically superior if all other parameters are identical.

I think the US got this wrong and history will prove that.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
Djpowell1984

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Given the time, effort and resources the US Army put into the evaluation programme that eventually selected the 6.8mm as meeting the most of their requirements, leading to the development of new Rifles and Light Machine Guns for said round, which in turn were thougly tested resulting in Sig winning the contract on merit, why do so many people think the US Army had not a clue what it was doing and chose the wrong round? were the results of all the tests carried out in error or corrupted? Given the majority of War Stocks available to NATO are sourced via the US, not using the same calibre is going to cause supply issues in any large scale future NATO conflict. People may not like 6.8mm but the US have best the future of their frontline Army combat formations on it. Other nations not using the same calibre of ammunition as the US Army willserverly hurt NATO.
These users liked the author Lord Jim 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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 21:53
mrclark303 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 13:51 The choice is quite simple really, stick with 5.56mm or go with 6.8X51mm. Both calibres will be NATO standard.
You seem very sure but I am much less convinced.

What if the European NATO countries come up with their own intermediate cartridge preference? The European grouping is getting bigger and bigger.

If a fair test is conducted the 6.8mm won’t win, either 6.5mm or 7mm is ballistically superior if all other parameters are identical.

I think the US got this wrong and history will prove that.
I totally get we're you are coming from, but in reality, virtually all other NATO countries, with the exception of Poland have slashed defence to the absolute bone.

The UK now finds itself today at a state of (almost) disarmament, our military capacity is absolutely diminished. Our ability to unilaterally act in any sizable way is gone, with no sign of the corrupt political class, who bled defence dry over the last 30 years, ever rectifying it.

We are 'utterly' reliant on NATO and by extension the US.

America absolutely calls the shots, as the backstop of our collective defence, they literally put their money where their mouth is, so going a different route to the US on this will simply not happen, I would bet my house on it.

With regards to NATO standard small arms calibres, it will remain 9mm, 5.56mm, with 6.8mm gradually replacing 7.62mm.

Countries that wish to, can simply remain with 5.56mm if they wish.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

mrclark303 wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 09:06
Poiuytrewq wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 21:53
mrclark303 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 13:51 The choice is quite simple really, stick with 5.56mm or go with 6.8X51mm. Both calibres will be NATO standard.
You seem very sure but I am much less convinced.

What if the European NATO countries come up with their own intermediate cartridge preference? The European grouping is getting bigger and bigger.

If a fair test is conducted the 6.8mm won’t win, either 6.5mm or 7mm is ballistically superior if all other parameters are identical.

I think the US got this wrong and history will prove that.
I totally get we're you are coming from, but in reality, virtually all other NATO countries, with the exception of Poland have slashed defence to the absolute bone.

The UK now finds itself today at a state of (almost) disarmament, our military capacity is absolutely diminished. Our ability to unilaterally act in any sizable way is gone, with no sign of the corrupt political class, who bled defence dry over the last 30 years, ever rectifying it.

We are 'utterly' reliant on NATO and by extension the US.

America absolutely calls the shots, as the backstop of our collective defence, they literally put their money where their mouth is, so going a different route to the US on this will simply not happen, I would bet my house on it.

With regards to NATO standard small arms calibres, it will remain 9mm, 5.56mm, with 6.8mm gradually replacing 7.62mm.

Countries that wish to, can simply remain with 5.56mm if they wish.
It will be interesting to see the new rifles developed to use it, Colt and HK both have rifles in the works, Lithgow was first off the blocks with a prototype( I believe), with a 6.8x51 trials F88 derivative.

It's a very hot round and putting it through a 20" barrel will certainly give it a blistering velocity!

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mr.fred »

mrclark303 wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 09:06 With regards to NATO standard small arms calibres, it will remain 9mm, 5.56mm, with 6.8mm gradually replacing 7.62mm.
Maybe the 6.8 will replace the 7.62mm, in time. After all the 7.62mm NATO comes from similarly flawed thinking.

When we've seen the cost of the new round and licensing opportunities*, along with how heavily the US is investing in it, then we can make a decision of should we follow or not. Early adoption doesn't come with much in the way of benefits and plenty of risks we can't afford in the same way the US can.

*because we wouldn't want to have to rely on single source, single country for ammunition supply.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
mrclark303

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

FWIW the Swedish Defense Materiel Agency, FMV, has placed a contract worth approx. SEK 875 million ~£70 million with Sako, a Berretta company, for automatic carbines in caliber 5.56x45, automatic carbines in caliber 7.62x51, sniper rifles in caliber 7.62x51 and sniper rifles in caliber 8.6 x70 Lapua Magnum / .338 Lapua.

No mention of the 6.8x51.

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/swede ... ands-sako/

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

NickC wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 12:37 No mention of the 6.8x51.
Clearly they didn’t get the memo from the US.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

mr.fred wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 12:12 Early adoption doesn't come with much in the way of benefits and plenty of risks we can't afford in the same way the US can.
Agreed but the 338 GM is de-risked so early adaptation should be fine if that is the direction of travel.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

NickC wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 12:37 FWIW the Swedish Defense Materiel Agency, FMV, has placed a contract worth approx. SEK 875 million ~£70 million with Sako, a Berretta company, for automatic carbines in caliber 5.56x45, automatic carbines in caliber 7.62x51, sniper rifles in caliber 7.62x51 and sniper rifles in caliber 8.6 x70 Lapua Magnum / .338 Lapua.

No mention of the 6.8x51.

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/swede ... ands-sako/
I suppose they aren't in NATO yet and at this point 6.8 isn't officially adopted as a NATO standard yet.

I should have added .338 to the NATO calibers, it's an ancillary Sniper round.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mrclark303 »

mr.fred wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 12:12
mrclark303 wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 09:06 With regards to NATO standard small arms calibres, it will remain 9mm, 5.56mm, with 6.8mm gradually replacing 7.62mm.
Maybe the 6.8 will replace the 7.62mm, in time. After all the 7.62mm NATO comes from similarly flawed thinking.

When we've seen the cost of the new round and licensing opportunities*, along with how heavily the US is investing in it, then we can make a decision of should we follow or not. Early adoption doesn't come with much in the way of benefits and plenty of risks we can't afford in the same way the US can.

*because we wouldn't want to have to rely on single source, single country for ammunition supply.
We aren't in any particular hurry in the UK, we are unofficially adopting AR platforms in the shape of Colt Canada C7/8, issued on an ever expanding basis, from SF use to wholesale re-equppment of the Royal Marines, the forming Rangers and probably the Paras next.

The rest of the army will carry on with L85A3 rebuilds and that will be fine for the next 8 years plus quite frankly.

We can expect wholesale re-equppment with a 6.8mm rifle from 2030 on....

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

s anyone know how long it took from the US adopting the AR-15 to another NATO country adopting a rifle in 5.56 as its general service weapon? Our SF will probably want to purchase a few M7s and M250s to play with sometime in the near future. They are our unofficial Small Arms tester by default.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mr.fred »

It's about 10 years between the US adopting the M16 as it's service rifle and NATO standardising on the SS109.

The M14, and by association the 7.62 NATO as the service rifle calibre, lasted 10-15 years as the US service rifle.

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

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

mr.fred wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 10:25 It's about 10 years between the US adopting the M16 as it's service rifle and NATO standardising on the SS109.

The M14, and by association the 7.62 NATO as the service rifle calibre, lasted 10-15 years as the US service rifle.
M14/7.62 only in production from 1959 to 1964, totally outclassed by the firepower of the AK-47 in Vietnam and replaced by the M16/5.56 in 1964, Wikipedia mentions the M14 tooling was sold to Taiwan in 1969, lasted in Europe till 1970.
These users liked the author NickC for the post:
paulgray

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

Another customer to the list for the H&K 416 A7 rifle.
(This is the KSK/special forces rifle not the A8 the new standard Bundeswehr rifle )

Post Reply