Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2 3 ... 5 6
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Ayahuasca

Original Poster:

18,308 posts

166 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
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?

Condi

3,861 posts

58 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
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.

JD84

201 posts

39 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
The SA80 is now accurate and reliable. It is not one of the best assault rifles in the world, it is ergonomically shocking, heavy and over complicated. A weapon system that requires 2 hands to complete almost every drill

It does not compare to any of the M16 family in terms of simplicity, weight or ergonomics, with a 20" barrell it is more accurate than all but the M16 A2

The new weapon the sharposhooter is essentaially the same ergonomic design as the M16 family, as is the HK 416/417 family which is being used to replace the G3.

7.62 rules but is heavy when your carrying a load. It is the drago round whatever it hits it destroys. 7.62x51 that is.

sjp63

1,986 posts

159 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
When I were a lad we used .303, then 7.62 Never shot a 5.56 unless you count .22 wink

Ayahuasca

Original Poster:

18,308 posts

166 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
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?


Advertisement

130R

4,825 posts

93 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
Designated marksman rifle I believe ..

Symbolica

10,101 posts

102 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
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.
Unless you're left handed.

Jasandjules

51,882 posts

116 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
Larger, heavier rounds. More to carry etc...

Issi

858 posts

37 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
It's a strange looking beast.
I can't see the entire Army reverting back to 7.62, as I'm reasonably sure that the rest of NATO uses 5.56. I may be entirely wrong about this as I've been out for years.

ben_h100

1,102 posts

66 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
JD84 said:
The SA80 is now accurate and reliable. It is not one of the best assault rifles in the world, it is ergonomically shocking, heavy and over complicated. A weapon system that requires 2 hands to complete almost every drill

It does not compare to any of the M16 family in terms of simplicity, weight or ergonomics, with a 20" barrell it is more accurate than all but the M16 A2

The new weapon the sharposhooter is essentaially the same ergonomic design as the M16 family, as is the HK 416/417 family which is being used to replace the G3.

7.62 rules but is heavy when your carrying a load. It is the drago round whatever it hits it destroys. 7.62x51 that is.
True, the SA80 is a heavy beast when compared to something like the M4. We did a days shooting with the M4 - hundreds of rounds from the standing position. Would never have been able to do this with the SA80.

Papa Hotel

12,753 posts

69 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
Can't see it happening, not with the rest of NATO using 5.56 too.

Why, though, I don't know. The lethality of 5.56 is questionable, particularly against reasonable body armour, 7.62 makes far more sense in that regard. Oh who knows, someone far more qualified than us makes these decisions.

Also: what an odd thread for PH. Mind you, I'm sure it'd go straight in the hole if posted on arrse.

Vieste

10,532 posts

47 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
130R said:
Designated marksman rifle I believe ..
yes

Jasandjules

51,882 posts

116 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
Papa Hotel said:
The lethality of 5.56 is questionable, particularly against reasonable body armour, 7.62 makes far more sense in that regard.
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!

PHuzzy

1,676 posts

59 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
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!

rumple

4,885 posts

38 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
I was always taught that the 5.56mm had more stopping power than a 7.62mm, owing to the fact its less powerful, it was supposed to turn it the body, as for body armour, in my day, and so im told today its fking useless, meant to be more of anti stab than anti rifle, its not made to stop rounds but to stop your insides scattering everywhere, the little kevlar plates, lets just say youd be lucky to get shot there, also im lefthanded and had to learn to shoot righthanded, wasnt really an issue, of course i could be wrong.

Papa Hotel

12,753 posts

69 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
PHuzzy said:
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 was taught that you don't deploy lethal means unless you intend to kill.

PHuzzy

1,676 posts

59 months

[news] 
Friday 13th July 2012 quote quote all
Papa Hotel said:
I was taught that you don't deploy lethal means unless you intend to kill.
Good point, well made! The 5.56mm isn't a non lethal round though is it?
So as long as you hit the target then there is going to be one of 2 outcomes, dead or incapacitated, either one will do.
However, incapacitated will draw more enemy into your line of fire by helping the injured target.
Effective? Very!

Ayahuasca

Original Poster:

18,308 posts

166 months

[news] 
Saturday 14th July 2012 quote quote all
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.

DanB7290

5,305 posts

77 months

[news] 
Saturday 14th July 2012 quote quote all
PHuzzy said:
The 5.56mm isn't a non lethal round though is it?
I wouldn't have thought so, a .22 is lethal, heck even an air gun pellet is lethal if it hits the right bit.

In answer to the OP's question, I'd say they're not going to use solely 5.56 or 7.62, it'll be whichever is best for the task in hand.

GC8

15,175 posts

77 months

[news] 
Saturday 14th July 2012 quote quote all
Soldiers have always told each other that their armour is only designed to hold them together and not protect them, but that isnt true. The trouble is that soft armour cant keep out a high velocity rifle bullet - its as bullet proof as it can be, but it needs plates to cover vital organs and theyre a compromise between size/weight and freedom of movement.

Itll all keep out an MP5 round, which is all you can hope for without a trauma plate.
2 3 ... 5 6
Reply to Topic