SA80 replacement.
Discussion
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Having talked to a number of armourers, AIUI H&K were originally not going to produce any more of the SA 80 family of weapons.
However, the latest iteration of the L85 is actually stamped L85A3 on the TMH (Trigger Mechanism Housing) - the main difference from the L85A2 being extra weld reinforcement in areas that were prone to cracking when the weapon was used in prolonged fully automatic mode.
It appears, therefore, that H&K are going to provide support, but for how long who knows? It very much appeared the case that H&K were going to favour their own design (the G36) but this itself has come in for major criticism, not least at Governmental level.
With regards to ammunition calibre, there has been a lot of criticism of 5.56 NATO (5.56 x 45 mm) but I am not sure how much of this is realistic and how much unfounded. I would also be wary of basing a decision purely on the Afghanistan experience. While US SF may favour 6.8mm Remington (which certainly on paper looks to have a better lethality at range), is it really necessary? It is also worth pointing out that US 5.56 (actually .223) does not have the same performance as does 5.56 NATO, the latter cartridge producing greater internal pressure.
G36? yes it has, its faults have been known for years. even the German army are ditching it.cant remember exactly something like the receiver bedded into plastic moves around when hot. i.e you fire it accuracy literately goes out the window.However, the latest iteration of the L85 is actually stamped L85A3 on the TMH (Trigger Mechanism Housing) - the main difference from the L85A2 being extra weld reinforcement in areas that were prone to cracking when the weapon was used in prolonged fully automatic mode.
It appears, therefore, that H&K are going to provide support, but for how long who knows? It very much appeared the case that H&K were going to favour their own design (the G36) but this itself has come in for major criticism, not least at Governmental level.
With regards to ammunition calibre, there has been a lot of criticism of 5.56 NATO (5.56 x 45 mm) but I am not sure how much of this is realistic and how much unfounded. I would also be wary of basing a decision purely on the Afghanistan experience. While US SF may favour 6.8mm Remington (which certainly on paper looks to have a better lethality at range), is it really necessary? It is also worth pointing out that US 5.56 (actually .223) does not have the same performance as does 5.56 NATO, the latter cartridge producing greater internal pressure.
the manual actually says if its hot outside and its been on the floor you have to rotate it
its a flawed design.cant see why they don't go piston AR and be done.
Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 26th May 15:14
Cheese Mechanic said:
Could not a small very high speed round be practical? I well recall reading an article about a US custom round used by (I think) Wetherby. If I recal correctly, the calibre was 17/223 and had a muzzle velocity in excess of 4000fps. Hitting power was huge for such a small projectile.
Is it possible fragmentation be an issue, or such a small round be overly susceptible to deflection, twigs, etc?
Penetration would be good but I suspect the "impact" wouldn't. The 5.56 suffers in windy conditions been more easily being blown off course as well so a 1.7mm would probably still have those problems. It's a bit like being hit by a lot of needles. They will kill you but slowly. Afgahnistan was a bit like "World War Z" in that the target would not go down if hit by several bullets. You needed Heavier bullets or Volley Fire to be effective. Hence the Taliban could tie you down with combatants still firing well after the point at which most soldiers would be being pulled off the battle field to keep them alive. Is it possible fragmentation be an issue, or such a small round be overly susceptible to deflection, twigs, etc?
Pesty said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Having talked to a number of armourers, AIUI H&K were originally not going to produce any more of the SA 80 family of weapons.
However, the latest iteration of the L85 is actually stamped L85A3 on the TMH (Trigger Mechanism Housing) - the main difference from the L85A2 being extra weld reinforcement in areas that were prone to cracking when the weapon was used in prolonged fully automatic mode.
It appears, therefore, that H&K are going to provide support, but for how long who knows? It very much appeared the case that H&K were going to favour their own design (the G36) but this itself has come in for major criticism, not least at Governmental level.
With regards to ammunition calibre, there has been a lot of criticism of 5.56 NATO (5.56 x 45 mm) but I am not sure how much of this is realistic and how much unfounded. I would also be wary of basing a decision purely on the Afghanistan experience. While US SF may favour 6.8mm Remington (which certainly on paper looks to have a better lethality at range), is it really necessary? It is also worth pointing out that US 5.56 (actually .223) does not have the same performance as does 5.56 NATO, the latter cartridge producing greater internal pressure.
G36? yes it has, its faults have been known for years. even the German army are ditching it.cant remember exactly something like the receiver bedded into plastic moves around when hot. i.e you fire it accuracy literately goes out the window.However, the latest iteration of the L85 is actually stamped L85A3 on the TMH (Trigger Mechanism Housing) - the main difference from the L85A2 being extra weld reinforcement in areas that were prone to cracking when the weapon was used in prolonged fully automatic mode.
It appears, therefore, that H&K are going to provide support, but for how long who knows? It very much appeared the case that H&K were going to favour their own design (the G36) but this itself has come in for major criticism, not least at Governmental level.
With regards to ammunition calibre, there has been a lot of criticism of 5.56 NATO (5.56 x 45 mm) but I am not sure how much of this is realistic and how much unfounded. I would also be wary of basing a decision purely on the Afghanistan experience. While US SF may favour 6.8mm Remington (which certainly on paper looks to have a better lethality at range), is it really necessary? It is also worth pointing out that US 5.56 (actually .223) does not have the same performance as does 5.56 NATO, the latter cartridge producing greater internal pressure.
the manual actually says if its hot outside and its been on the floor you have to rotate it
its a flawed design.cant see why they don't go piston AR and be done.
Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 26th May 15:14
Turns out the Germany army modded the requirements so only the G36 could win the competition
I wonder which German generals got nice houses or jobs at HK?
The German army has also been caught crushing several tonnes of new G3 rifles (Long term stored coated in buckets cosmoline)
HK also so sold inspite of a ban to Mexico
HK is in up to its neck in sticky doo dah
because you suck and we hate you
http://monsterhunternation.com/2007/10/09/hk-becau...
how about FN scar H or just duust off the FALs if there are any left
http://monsterhunternation.com/2007/10/09/hk-becau...
how about FN scar H or just duust off the FALs if there are any left
I actually like the G36C, it's easy to use, accurate and compact, and well balanced. If those rumours are correct about its long-term reliability, I'd opt for the LMT Defender, providing we stick with 5.56 / .223 of course.
HM Forces have already taken delivery of its 7.62mm bigger brother, the LM308
HM Forces have already taken delivery of its 7.62mm bigger brother, the LM308
V88Dicky said:
I actually like the G36C, it's easy to use, accurate and compact, and well balanced. If those rumours are correct about its long-term reliability, I'd opt for the LMT Defender, providing we stick with 5.56 / .223 of course.
HM Forces have already taken delivery of its 7.62mm bigger brother, the LM308
Not too sure if that’s not a step backwards tbh...HM Forces have already taken delivery of its 7.62mm bigger brother, the LM308
Isn't the issue that previous military thinking had it that killing enemy soldiers is not actually the primary goal. Ideally you want to put them out of the fight by wounding them. As callous at is sounds, dead soldiers can be tagged and left for later, but wounded ones put a huge strain on the enemy's logistics chain by tying up many times their number getting them to medical attention.
So 5.56 was fine when the enemy were likely to be the a recognised army like the Soviets, but jihadi fanatics who are invariably out of their tree on drugs, need to be shot to bits before they bleed out and drop. Plus they're usually skinny little sods and the full metal jacketed bullets tend to zip straight through without tumbling and causing the intended grievous injury. Nor do they have a significant logistics chain or take much care of their wounded. They probably lose more fighters to septicaemia than to directly lethal wounds.
Perhaps instead of bigger bullets they should switch to using hollow points when the enemy is not a recognised army. Domestic police forces use hollow points before anyone gets antsy. The Hague Conventions that banned them were to only apply to armies of signatory nations. Interestingly the US was not one of them.
So 5.56 was fine when the enemy were likely to be the a recognised army like the Soviets, but jihadi fanatics who are invariably out of their tree on drugs, need to be shot to bits before they bleed out and drop. Plus they're usually skinny little sods and the full metal jacketed bullets tend to zip straight through without tumbling and causing the intended grievous injury. Nor do they have a significant logistics chain or take much care of their wounded. They probably lose more fighters to septicaemia than to directly lethal wounds.
Perhaps instead of bigger bullets they should switch to using hollow points when the enemy is not a recognised army. Domestic police forces use hollow points before anyone gets antsy. The Hague Conventions that banned them were to only apply to armies of signatory nations. Interestingly the US was not one of them.
telecat said:
Penetration would be good but I suspect the "impact" wouldn't. The 5.56 suffers in windy conditions been more easily being blown off course as well so a 1.7mm would probably still have those problems. It's a bit like being hit by a lot of needles. They will kill you but slowly. Afgahnistan was a bit like "World War Z" in that the target would not go down if hit by several bullets. You needed Heavier bullets or Volley Fire to be effective. Hence the Taliban could tie you down with combatants still firing well after the point at which most soldiers would be being pulled off the battle field to keep them alive.
Think its lost in translation , I meant .17 as in of an inch,as against 1.7mill, slightly smaller than the the traditional 177 air rifle bore. The article I read, concerning the round showed dramatic effect on tree branches and all. Having said that, I suppose its not far removed from the 4 mill round being mentioned.
V88Dicky said:
Mojocvh said:
Not too sure if that’s not a step backwards tbh...
Because it doesn't look like a ray gun?We went with something unproven and 'futuristic' looking 25 years ago........
What I meant we have successfully followed the bullpup principal. Having operated both "long" and "short" UK rifles in service the bullpup principal wins hands down in all situations.
As for calibre and reach most of the "problems" come from inadequate rounds fired through inadequate barrels not allowing the round to reach a velocity where once downrange it retained enough velocity/spin to explosively fragment as it was designed to do...windage, well that should surely be down to skill to correct [something I discovered on a windy barrybuddon one afternoon
]Mojocvh said:
windage, well that should surely be down to skill to correct [something I discovered on a windy barrybuddon one afternoon ]
Not for much longer! ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX8Z2MDYX3g
Rogue86 said:
Mojocvh said:
windage, well that should surely be down to skill to correct [something I discovered on a windy barrybuddon one afternoon ]
Not for much longer! ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX8Z2MDYX3g
Cheese Mechanic said:
telecat said:
Penetration would be good but I suspect the "impact" wouldn't. The 5.56 suffers in windy conditions been more easily being blown off course as well so a 1.7mm would probably still have those problems. It's a bit like being hit by a lot of needles. They will kill you but slowly. Afgahnistan was a bit like "World War Z" in that the target would not go down if hit by several bullets. You needed Heavier bullets or Volley Fire to be effective. Hence the Taliban could tie you down with combatants still firing well after the point at which most soldiers would be being pulled off the battle field to keep them alive.
Think its lost in translation , I meant .17 as in of an inch,as against 1.7mill, slightly smaller than the the traditional 177 air rifle bore. The article I read, concerning the round showed dramatic effect on tree branches and all. Having said that, I suppose its not far removed from the 4 mill round being mentioned.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff