UK Defence Forum

When Santa sent you a very very very bad new year gift !!!!!!!!!
Anybody's has any info if have been any UK MOD ore any individual unit that have order on a small scale of the rifle bellow???

leonard wrote: ↑31 Dec 2022, 15:49 When Santa sent you a very very very bad new year gift !!!!!!!!!
Anybody's has any info if have been any UK MOD ore any individual unit that have order on a small scale of the rifle bellow???

Hopefully not, there's already to many units doing their own thing. When the L85 gets replaced what happens with these bespoke buys? Do they keep them for another 30+ years or do they get scrapped?

If done properly, the Sa80 family could be replaced by a single family of weapons in 556 & 762 (I'm still not convinced the US 6.8 will survive), for example the Czech Bren 2, the Poles Grot or the Septics LMT MARS... (FN could have a shout if the did a proper update on the SCAR and gave it swappable mlok handguards).

The rifles themselves cost peanuts on the grand scale of things. It's the optics and lasers that cost the big money and they get updated ad-hoc all the time. So long as they all take the same magazine why should it be one rifle that fits all? Special forces will always want to have their own choice of weapon if it's available.

leonard wrote: ↑31 Dec 2022, 15:49 When Santa sent you a very very very bad new year gift !!!!!!!!!
Anybody's has any info if have been any UK MOD ore any individual unit that have order on a small scale of the rifle bellow???

Nonein service with the UK. All of the recalled rifles are semi-auto in private hands.

BB85 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 23:09 The rifles themselves cost peanuts on the grand scale of things. It's the optics and lasers that cost the big money and they get updated ad-hoc all the time. So long as they all take the same magazine why should it be one rifle that fits all? Special forces will always want to have their own choice of weapon if it's available.

Logistics and training? If you use one family of rifles, you have the same controls, you have the same (or similar parts). Look at the US, someone trained on an M4 will be OK picking up a mk18, a mk12, even an M110...

As long as what ever family is selected has actually been tested and verified properly I can't see why you wouldn't

Given Sig Sauer went to great lengths to make the controls of the M5 similar to the M4 means the same argument applies to this rifle as well in my opinion.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:54 Given Sig Sauer went to great lengths to make the controls of the M5 similar to the M4 means the same argument applies to this rifle as well in my opinion.

Welcome back Jim. How are you doing?

Lord Jim wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 14:54 Given Sig Sauer went to great lengths to make the controls of the M5 similar to the M4 means the same argument applies to this rifle as well in my opinion.

I wouldn't say they went to "great lengths", they took the mcx which has been around for 7-8 years and adapted it to a new calibre. And yes, the mcx (to succeed in the US civil market), has controls based on the AR15. Every design out of the US in the last 30+ years has been held back by this.

Anyone know of any current news / update on decision of procurement of possible 10,000 5.56mm assult rifles for the Ranger Regiment

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... new-rifle/

https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/08/02 ... ade-rifle/

The programme is on going (not sure when it's due date is). HK and Glock are known to be interested, don't know who else has put their hand up.

Has there been an official revision of the OSD for the L85 to 2030 or later. Last I read 2025 was still listed.

What I would like to know is the justification for the purchase of a new rifle for the Rangers.

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.

Because, like the Marine's, mummy and daddy want them to feel special

Lord Jim wrote: ↑11 Jan 2023, 21:04 Has there been an official revision of the OSD for the L85 to 2030 or later. Last I read 2025 was still listed.

The requirement for the new assault rifle specifies that it must be an Armalite platform design, have seen no rationale given, which is an underhand way of ruling out the SA80A3 which is a bullpup design.

Sounds more interesting to me than the 6.8...

Just to add to that, here's an article with a bit more info...

https://soldiersystems.net/2023/01/16/t ... nt-1302099

Nice ideas but with the US selecting the 6.8mm, 6.5mm really has no where to go.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑17 Jan 2023, 23:02 Nice ideas but with the US selecting the 6.8mm, 6.5mm really has no where to go.

I'm still expecting the 6.8 Spear to be another M14 for the Septics tbh

Little J wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 13:34 Sounds more interesting to me than the 6.8...

Drummond is a paid lobbyist for FN.

Quite possibly... Are soldier systems dot net too?

Little J wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 20:25 Quite possibly... Are soldier systems dot net too?

I'm going to assume the current rolling A3 rebuild will carry on for approx 80,000 rifles and AR platforms from HK and Colt Canada will make up the rest 20/30,000 to get us to 2035 ish.

We can expect the Paras to shift shortly to an AR platform in lockstep with the Royal Marines, Special forces, support group and Rangers. Basically all 'sharp end' units will be prominently AR.

By then we will no doubt be looking at a rifle chambered in 6.8x51mm, Lithgow have already trialed an Aug in 6.8 and you can guarantee all the main players are already working on competing designs.

I'm personally sure it will be a design based on AR ergonomics, as anyone who's ever used one will attest, all the controls fall naturally to hand and in my opinion, can't be beaten.

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 had a quick look at the US Army Marksmanship Unit’s .264 (6.5 mm) USA round, it would appear to be a 6.5mm Grendel with the case lengthened from 39mm to ~48mm? The 6.5 mm Grendel uses the Russian AK-47 7.62 x 39 case necked down to 6.5 mm with the bullet having a much better ballistics (Russians had used the 7.62 as it was standard barrel in production for their rifles and machine guns at the time).

The 6.5 mm Grendel was one answer to the critism that the 5.56 mm had came under for its limited stopping power, the 6.5 mm Grendel was able to fire a bullet approx. twice the weight of the 5.56mm and as said with better ballistics and could be fired from an AR15 platform The US Army Marksmanship Unit’s .264 USA round with it longer case and made of stainless steel for higher pressures further increasing the stopping power, expect the driver was to counter the envisaged future improved body armour, as it is with the 6.8x5,1 which was chosen in preference to the 264 USA?

Some of the drawbacks with the 264 USA include the stainless steel case which totally unproven, standard brass being softer much gives better at obturation and expect much easier to manufacture in the billions required, the rounds heavier and expect nearer the weight of 7.62 mm so soldiers can carry less ammo, very much doubt able to be fired from AR15 platform as just too large, would need a larger and heavier rifle and also needed to offset the heavier recoil when fired in auto (the same arguments applies to the new US Army 6.8x51 round).

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