SA80 replacement.
Discussion
Looks like it will need to be replaced before 2020. Essentially because it is wearing out. Given that 5.56mm is not proving a great all rounder and 7.62 NATO is heavy and not as advanced as some "modern" ammo the US are likely to switch before 2025. The Desert Tech MDR looks a good replacement. Could be built in the UK. Switchable calibre, ambidextrous cartridge exit and Bullpup.
http://deserttech.com/mdr.php
http://deserttech.com/mdr.php
telecat said:
Looks like it will need to be replaced before 2020. Essentially because it is wearing out. Given that 5.56mm is not proving a great all rounder and 7.62 NATO is heavy and not as advanced as some "modern" ammo the US are likely to switch before 2025. The Desert Tech MDR looks a good replacement. Could be built in the UK. Switchable calibre, ambidextrous cartridge exit and Bullpup.
http://deserttech.com/mdr.php
Butt ugly though. http://deserttech.com/mdr.php
the 6.8 at 300 meters has twice the muzzle energy of the 5.56 and almost triple at 500m
Gives the ordinary solider using optics and extra 200m of effective range
US SF having been using the 6.8 in Afghanistan and don't want the 5.56 anymore
also mean minimum redesign of existing rifles.
Gives the ordinary solider using optics and extra 200m of effective range
US SF having been using the 6.8 in Afghanistan and don't want the 5.56 anymore
also mean minimum redesign of existing rifles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80
"Technically, in the mid-1970s, the 4.85×49mm round was seen as superior to the then existing version of 5.56mm M193 round in use by the US (for the M16/M16A1) and by other forces. (This was the expressed view of trials team members whilst demonstrating the XL64E5 prototype at the British Army School of Infantry at Warminster.) It should be noted that development of small-arms munitions have a long and continuous life and it was estimated by the trials specialists from Enfield that this weapon would ultimately be superior in the 4.85mm configuration. For the 4.85 mm round, both propellant and projectile were at the beginning of their respective development curves. Also, weight for weight, more rounds of ammunition could be carried by an individual soldier – a considerable advantage on the battlefield. It was regarded as probable at the time that the argument for the 5.56 mm standard within NATO had more to do with the economics involved. Over the lifetime of a small-arms weapon type, far more money is spent on the munitions than the weapons themselves. If the 5.56 mm supporters had lost the argument in favour of a British 4.85 mm round, the economic impact would have been very large and political pressure undoubtedly played a part in the final decision."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.85%C3%9749mm
"During the 1960s, the United Kingdom experimented with creating a lightweight but effective replacement for the 7.62×51mm NATO round. Their original experiments focused on a .280 British round necked downed to 6.3mm.[2] However, in the 1960s, a West German study proposed that an ideal cartridge would have a 5mm or smaller caliber. The results of this study encouraged the United Kingdom switch to using a 5mm caliber bullet for their experimental cartridge.[3] The requirement for a 5mm round for what would be the SA80 sealed the idea that a 5mm round needed to be made.
The 4.85x49mm originally started off as the 5×44mm round, which was made in 1970.[3][4] The bullet shape used in these early prototypes were based on one used by the 6.23×43mm round, another experimental British round.[4] The actual cases were made from reformed 5.56 NATO rounds. However, it was soon decided that the round would be renamed to “4.85×44mm” in order to match the diameter of the test gun barrel's lands.[3] The actual diameter of the round didn't change."
UK 6.25X43mm round.
http://militarycartridges.nl/uk/6_25mm.htm
Seems the weapon manufacturers are drifting away from the actual basics and more into "designer" weapons!!
"Technically, in the mid-1970s, the 4.85×49mm round was seen as superior to the then existing version of 5.56mm M193 round in use by the US (for the M16/M16A1) and by other forces. (This was the expressed view of trials team members whilst demonstrating the XL64E5 prototype at the British Army School of Infantry at Warminster.) It should be noted that development of small-arms munitions have a long and continuous life and it was estimated by the trials specialists from Enfield that this weapon would ultimately be superior in the 4.85mm configuration. For the 4.85 mm round, both propellant and projectile were at the beginning of their respective development curves. Also, weight for weight, more rounds of ammunition could be carried by an individual soldier – a considerable advantage on the battlefield. It was regarded as probable at the time that the argument for the 5.56 mm standard within NATO had more to do with the economics involved. Over the lifetime of a small-arms weapon type, far more money is spent on the munitions than the weapons themselves. If the 5.56 mm supporters had lost the argument in favour of a British 4.85 mm round, the economic impact would have been very large and political pressure undoubtedly played a part in the final decision."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.85%C3%9749mm
"During the 1960s, the United Kingdom experimented with creating a lightweight but effective replacement for the 7.62×51mm NATO round. Their original experiments focused on a .280 British round necked downed to 6.3mm.[2] However, in the 1960s, a West German study proposed that an ideal cartridge would have a 5mm or smaller caliber. The results of this study encouraged the United Kingdom switch to using a 5mm caliber bullet for their experimental cartridge.[3] The requirement for a 5mm round for what would be the SA80 sealed the idea that a 5mm round needed to be made.
The 4.85x49mm originally started off as the 5×44mm round, which was made in 1970.[3][4] The bullet shape used in these early prototypes were based on one used by the 6.23×43mm round, another experimental British round.[4] The actual cases were made from reformed 5.56 NATO rounds. However, it was soon decided that the round would be renamed to “4.85×44mm” in order to match the diameter of the test gun barrel's lands.[3] The actual diameter of the round didn't change."
UK 6.25X43mm round.
http://militarycartridges.nl/uk/6_25mm.htm
Seems the weapon manufacturers are drifting away from the actual basics and more into "designer" weapons!!
Are H&K not part of BAE so will they not design the new one. Also do we not need to make such things at home so as not to be reliant on foreign supplier. I am sure we could copy / buy a licence though. But really is it a major issue today other than for a bit of gun porn. Personally I like the m48 pulse rifle from aliens
telecat said:
Looks like it will need to be replaced before 2020. Essentially because it is wearing out.
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.
I would have thought we'd go down the route of something tried/tested (HK416) rather than a new weapon system in that space of time. I don't know many people who have had issues with the latest L85s though, other than the fact that they weigh a lot more than US rifles especially with a UGL they're a good system to operate.
I believe that the US have been disappointed by the performance of the 5.56. They have played around with the loading but the round does not "tumble" as well as hoped when it hits a target. The UK have altered the Bullet a little and the US have played very close to the wind by having a bullet that fragments a little. The main criticism is that the combat range is about 300m in the M16/M4 and up to 500M with the SA80. At that range the covering "effect" is not good whereas a 7.62 round can be "heard" when hitting targets. It's a theme that goes back to Vietnam where US soldiers could not take "cover" behind trees that the Vietcong could. As such it's felt that a 6.5mm Grendal or 6.8mm round would cover both bases while still being lighter to carry than the 7.62.
As for the SA80 the version you are referring to is the L95 L2 TES which the culmination of several updates including the Magpul Polymer Magazine with a Window, New ECLAN Specter site, New Picatinny Rails and Hand grip. A number of parts are now Titanium and the Rifle is 1KG lighter than it used to be.
As for the SA80 the version you are referring to is the L95 L2 TES which the culmination of several updates including the Magpul Polymer Magazine with a Window, New ECLAN Specter site, New Picatinny Rails and Hand grip. A number of parts are now Titanium and the Rifle is 1KG lighter than it used to be.
I'm not sure we should be going down the road of an M4 derivative.
For a start, by shortening the barrel from the 20" of the M16/AR15 to the 14.5" of the M4 you are throwing away long range performance; precisely what the 6.8mm round is supposed to overcome. The muzzle velocity on an M4 is some 200 fps lower than the M16/AR15 (and would be more still had the Spams not upped the performance of the round by altering the charge).
The advantage of the M4 is the reduced weapon length and increased 'pointability' which is advantageous for use in built up areas, jungle, etc.
However, reduced weapon length is exactly why the bullpup design came about. The L85 has a 20.4" barrel but is only 35.4" in overall length compared to the 39.5" of the M16/AR15 and 33" of the M4.
Having fired many, many rounds through the L85A1, L85A2 and the L98A2 (the Cadet GP Rifle), as well as having fired the M16/AR15 and M4 I am absolutely convinced that the SA80 family win hands down for accuracy.
Where the SA80 family are 'odd' is directly the result of the bullpup configuration, that is to say the long trigger bar can give a very 'notchy' feel to the trigger action, and a good prone firing position feels unlike any conventional configuration assault rifle. Having said that, firing from alternative positions, the weapon is very quick into the aim, so much so that I am not convinced by the need for a pickatinny/Weaver/NAR rail and the fore-grip.
As has been said, though, the weapon is almost unnecessarily heavy so a saving of a Kg would be a major improvement (bringing the rifle into M16/AR18 territory).
For a start, by shortening the barrel from the 20" of the M16/AR15 to the 14.5" of the M4 you are throwing away long range performance; precisely what the 6.8mm round is supposed to overcome. The muzzle velocity on an M4 is some 200 fps lower than the M16/AR15 (and would be more still had the Spams not upped the performance of the round by altering the charge).
The advantage of the M4 is the reduced weapon length and increased 'pointability' which is advantageous for use in built up areas, jungle, etc.
However, reduced weapon length is exactly why the bullpup design came about. The L85 has a 20.4" barrel but is only 35.4" in overall length compared to the 39.5" of the M16/AR15 and 33" of the M4.
Having fired many, many rounds through the L85A1, L85A2 and the L98A2 (the Cadet GP Rifle), as well as having fired the M16/AR15 and M4 I am absolutely convinced that the SA80 family win hands down for accuracy.
Where the SA80 family are 'odd' is directly the result of the bullpup configuration, that is to say the long trigger bar can give a very 'notchy' feel to the trigger action, and a good prone firing position feels unlike any conventional configuration assault rifle. Having said that, firing from alternative positions, the weapon is very quick into the aim, so much so that I am not convinced by the need for a pickatinny/Weaver/NAR rail and the fore-grip.
As has been said, though, the weapon is almost unnecessarily heavy so a saving of a Kg would be a major improvement (bringing the rifle into M16/AR18 territory).
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?
Is it possible fragmentation be an issue, or such a small round be overly susceptible to deflection, twigs, etc?
To me the M4 is pretty reliable these days but a bit of a dead end. As it stands the US Military tried to increase the range and lethality of the 5.56 by increasing the load in the bullet. The M855A1 round increased the Pressure in the barrel from 55,000 psi to 62,000 psi. Unfortunately the wear rate of the barrel and the Premature failure rate of the Bolt and other parts increased as well, shortening the life of the Rifle.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff