SA80 replacement.

[cirian75]

telecat said:

DMN said:

Surely the most sensible option (and probably one of the cheapest.....) is to buy the Canadian C8 Carbine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7_rifle

Its already in service with several branches of the Armed Forces including the SAS and Royal Marines.

Good in close quarters but that's the problem. The L85A3 is a better distance weapon which is where the M4 series fall down. The accuracy and "punch" just are not as good going out over 300M. Basically US forces Bought the SCAR-H and UK the LMT LM308mws or L129A1 to supplement the M4/SA80.

The idea is to replace both. the 5.56 is just not powerful enough whereas the 7.62 is too heavy for general Infantry use and rifles using it are not suited to close combat. It's why 6mm to 7mm ammo is being looked at.

6.8mm SPC has twice the energy of the 5.56 at 300m and triple at 500m

US SF is loving it.

[DMN]

Lefty said:

Not if they're trying to move away from 5.56 it's not.

Yes very true. However I doubt the money for such a change is there, even if the will is.

[telecat]

DMN said:

Lefty said:

Not if they're trying to move away from 5.56 it's not.

Yes very true. However I doubt the money for such a change is there, even if the will is.

Logistically they are buying 50 calibre, 7.62 and 5.56. The US Army have also tried increasing the lethality of the 5.56 which has proven to cause problems with M16/M4's not designed for the increased pressure of the modified round. If they can combine the two lighter rounds then there are savings to be had.

[Skywalker]

Whatever it is, you would hope that the next rifle is
A) in 6.5mm Grendel or perhaps mote likely 6.8mm SPC - because kinetic energy & ballistics matter - and,
B) In a Bullpup configuration - as this enables the longer barrel lengths to support A above, whilst making the bang-stick easy to use.

However, they will need to get the ergonomics right, so that...

• the selector switch(es) can be worked with with the trigger hand only;
• that there is an intuitive magazine positioning to make magazine loading & releasing easy with the non-trigger hand and without trying to wrestle the weapon.
• that it allows effective fire from either shoulder.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

The SA80 family were originally designed to be ambidextrous with the cocking lever on the 'correct' side.

I saw a prototype/pre-production example in 4.85 x 49 mm on a visit to the School of Infantry at Warminster in 1982.

It was a relatively easy task to change the weapon from RH use to LH use; I think this idea was binned for cost reasons. I am also reliably informed that cocking lever was placed on the 'wrong' side to make the weapon safer (ie more difficult to use!), an idea driven by engineers and not operators.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 28th May 11:22

[AJL308]

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?

That's what the commercially available .17 Remington round is. Been around for decades. Much too light for an all-round service cartridge.

Yes, very high velocity but very low bullet weight and too easily defeated by light body armour. Also, because of the light bullet weight it loses velocity very quickly so is crap at longer ranges

ajl.

[AJL308]

telecat said:

Penetration would be good but I suspect the "impact" wouldn't.

Penetration wouldn't be good. Unless it were a monolithic type bullet which it wouldn't be. .17 bullets have very light jackets and fragment very easily - way before they have any opportunity to penetrate to any extent.

These types of rounds are designed for small game like Groundhog which they absolutely obliterate. Fox sized animals they are good for also.

ajl

[AJL308]

telecat said:

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 not a 1.7mm bullet, it's a .17" cal bullet, ie: 0.170 of an inch (it's actually .172" of an inch which is 4.36mm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.17_Remington

ajl

[croyde]

As I was reading this, I was reminded how the post WW2 rifles were designed to injure rather than immediately kill, so two other soldiers were taken out of the combat area as they were trying to help their injured mate and get him to an aid station.

The new 'enemy' doesn't work this way so we need killing rifles again.

[cirian75]

croyde said:

As I was reading this, I was reminded how the post WW2 rifles were designed to injure rather than immediately kill, so two other soldiers were taken out of the combat area as they were trying to help their injured mate and get him to an aid station.

The new 'enemy' doesn't work this way so we need killing rifles again.

There is an immediate solution, but its very very very illegal on the battlefield.

Hollow point rounds

[Cheese Mechanic]

AJL308 said:

That's what the commercially available .17 Remington round is. Been around for decades. Much too light for an all-round service cartridge.
Yes, very high velocity but very low bullet weight and too easily defeated by light body armour. Also, because of the light bullet weight it loses velocity very quickly so is crap at longer ranges
ajl.

Thanks for that. Yes, the artical I read would have been late 70's early 80's, most likely in Guns and Ammo magazine.

[croyde]

cirian75 said:

There is an immediate solution, but its very very very illegal on the battlefield.

Hollow point rounds

Never understood why there are the wrong bullets in a war. You can't use a hollow point yet you can shred someone with a grenade.

[cirian75]

drivetrain said:

croyde said:

Never understood why there are the wrong bullets in a war. You can't use a hollow point yet you can shred someone with a grenade.

Agreed, don't the US police use hollow points?

Yes, to stop over penetration mainly and stopping power second

[130R]

AJL308 said:

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?

That's what the commercially available .17 Remington round is. Been around for decades. Much too light for an all-round service cartridge.

Yes, very high velocity but very low bullet weight and too easily defeated by light body armour. Also, because of the light bullet weight it loses velocity very quickly so is crap at longer ranges

ajl.

5.56 is already a small very high speed round. 5.56 is .223 with a different powder load, i.e. 22 caliber. Shoot a .22 Long Rifle used for plinking at a piece of paper then shoot the same paper with an SA80 and you will see the hole is the same size with both guns.

[Saddle bum]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

The original round for the SA80 family was a hypervelocity needle round in 4.85mm calibre (4.85 x 49mm).


It was superior to the 5.56 x 45mm round in every way but was dropped in favour of it. I suspect that the decision to drop it was purely Political.

It was..........

[Saddle bum]

The round and the delivery system are two different matters. The round is selected by NATO, the method being - the US chooses and everyone else does as they are told.

The delivery system, the rifle, is down to individual nations to design and procure.

[Ayahuasca]

croyde said:

As I was reading this, I was reminded how the post WW2 rifles were designed to injure rather than immediately kill, so two other soldiers were taken out of the combat area as they were trying to help their injured mate and get him to an aid station.

The new 'enemy' doesn't work this way so we need killing rifles again.

This is a myth. Rifles were never designed to wound. The post war NATO 7.62 round is almost as killing as it gets.

Hollow points? The current 5.56 round is designed to fragment inside the target sending shards of metal to cause tissue damage. The old wartime .303 originally had a bit of wood in the tip so that it flipped on impact and tumbled through the target.

Some anti-personnel mines were designed to wound for the reasons you state, but not rifles.

[AndrewEH1]

Ayahuasca said:

croyde said:

As I was reading this, I was reminded how the post WW2 rifles were designed to injure rather than immediately kill, so two other soldiers were taken out of the combat area as they were trying to help their injured mate and get him to an aid station.

The new 'enemy' doesn't work this way so we need killing rifles again.

This is a myth. Rifles were never designed to wound. The post war NATO 7.62 round is almost as killing as it gets.

Hollow points? The current 5.56 round is designed to fragment inside the target sending shards of metal to cause tissue damage. The old wartime .303 originally had a bit of wood in the tip so that it flipped on impact and tumbled through the target.

Some anti-personnel mines were designed to wound for the reasons you state, but not rifles.

Wasn't the myth that they used to shoot to wound rather than kill to remove more than one person from the frontline? Nothing to do with the rounds I thought?

[andy_s]

Ayahuasca said:

Time to bring back the tried and tested bang stick, the 'right arm of the free world'.

Drop a horse at a mile.

[Mojocvh]

andy_s said:

Ayahuasca said:

Time to bring back the tried and tested bang stick, the 'right arm of the free world'.

Drop a horse at a mile.

Even if you haven't targeted it?

I remember a case of an ND on the range at Akrotiri, the 7.62 round went high over the base and killed a local hanging her washing out over a mile away!

Over-penetration is a big problem, big solid bullets tend to keep on going.

Ironically some of the "safest" rounds are the small diameter extremely high velocity rounds that break up rather than go through multiple apartment walls...