back to 7.62 ?

[Ayahuasca]

When I were a lad we used 7.62mm rounds in an elephant gun called an SLR.

Then the army changed to the SA 80 and 5.56mm ammo.

I see that after years of combat experience they are back to 7.62 again:

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1...

Was it a mistake to switch to 5.56?

[Ayahuasca]

Condi said:

They arnt back to 7.62 - it will be used alongside the SA80A2 - arguably one of the best personal weapons used by any army in the world.

I read that 1 Para will be re-kitted with these, so must replace the SA80 completely, at least for them?

so 7.62mm and a twenty round magazine. Hmm. Would it not have been cheaper just to fit the optics to the SLR?

[Ayahuasca]

PHuzzy said:

Jasandjules said:

But that is (well, can be) the point - you don't kill enemy soldiers, you injure them badly. That way they have to use other soldiers to rescue them, and resources like choppers to get them back behind the lines then doctors and nurses and so on to care for them. I read somewhere or other that it is more demoralising for troops to see their friends injured and have to carry them to safety, than it is to have them killed.....

Same as grenades.

All the above could be utter tripe, it's in the back of my head from somewhere and I know not where!

No, you are indeed spot on!
I asked the question at basic training why we would use a 5.56mm round when most of our enemies use the 7.62 and that was the universally agreed answer, it does makes sense!

I believe this is an urban myth. The 5.56 round is designed to tumble, fragment and shred the enemy; very much designed too kill.

[Ayahuasca]

hidetheelephants said:

All you ever wanted to know about the '5.56 versus 7.62 versus whatever' argument but were afraid to ask

Interesting, cheers.

[Ayahuasca]

Saddle bum said:

inman999 said:

Saddle bum said:

voicey said:

JMGS4 said:

In my experience the SA80 is one of the worst firearms the Army ever bought (I was in at the introduction). It jammed, was difficult to strip and clean and was totally unreliable and innacurate. It may have improved now, but somehow I doubt it as when I have the adoo shooting at me I don't want a weapon that is ineffective over 200m when they're using AK47 or larger!

The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.

I concur - I too remember the intoduction of the SA80 and have been issued both weapons. Although it should be noted that the revisions to the SA80 have made an improvement to it (although I left before the revisions were intoduced and only have the account of others). My unit had an exchange program with the US Army so I had opportunity to use the M16 when I went over there - now that's what we should have been issued with all along.

I have no idea what prompted the MOD to design it's own weapon (SA80) from scratch - although I can guess someone made a killing out of the contract...

Get real will you?

Terminal ballistic effect is a function of the ammunition not the weapon that discharges it.

7.62mm has far more energy that 5.56mm at any range.

Too much uninformed opinion here, especially on the subject of SA80.

Barrel length has a direct effect on velocity, Physics lessons for the uninformed.

Are you saying that the projectile is still accelerating past the "all-burnt" position?

I believe he is and agree - the longer the barrel the longer the expanding propellant gases have to push the bullet forward. The bullet will accelerate all the way along the barrel.