New Rifle for the British Army

[Centrepin]

11 hours ago, Mr grumpy said:

A sergeant once told me,so it must be true.that we kept 7.62 for so long, because it matched the Russian ak 47.🤔

He's obviously never seen either an SLR or an AK, some NCOs still make me cringe with the outrageous garbage they instill into recruits as fact.

11 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Lots of thick sergeants around?  

Having been there I can only agree. How some people campaign themselves into rank never ceases to amaze me.

[Grandalf]

2 hours ago, Centrepin said:

He's obviously never seen either an SLR or an AK, some NCOs still make me cringe with the outrageous garbage they instill into recruits as fact.

Having been there I can only agree. How some people campaign themselves into rank never ceases to amaze me.

And I was so proud to have made it to Sergeant.   Now you have ruined my day.

(I had my 21st birthday party in the Sergeants Mess).

[wymberley]

14 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Lots of thick sergeants around?  

Hopefully, they get commissioned where they can't do so much harm. 

[Sweet11-87]

20 hours ago, Mr grumpy said:

A sergeant once told me,so it must be true.that we kept 7.62 for so long, because it matched the Russian ak 47.🤔

the real reason is bureaucracy.

originally the official nato round was going to be the .270 british. the yanks wernt having any of it so we tried the .280 british to apease them. still a no go. the compromise was  a .30 round if they adopted the fal like most of the west nations. so everyone adopted the 7.62/308  and they droped the fal in favour of the m14.  only to addopt the m16 in 5.56 less than 20 years later and the rest of nato followed suit.

annoying  .270 british  is a 7mm 100gr round doing about 2800/2900 fps.... so basically in the wheel house as all these wonder rounds that have been getting popular over the past 20 years.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

We'll be looking back at EM2 next!   

[Sweet11-87]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

We'll be looking back at EM2 next!   

or at the SLR.  the FN fal was designed to be in 280 anyway and its got a proven track record.

[Lloyd90]

On 09/09/2023 at 08:43, Stonepark said:

Sticking with 5.56mm, what a complete shchtfest....

 

this was the chance to move to a more suitable ballistic platform and then evaluate for a few years before the main army SA80's get replaced.

There’s probably tons and tons of 5.56x sat in warehouses all over in use at the moment. 
 

Also they’re very adaptable platforms, if they change to another calibre later on I imagine they’ll keep the same weapon platforms just have the calibre changed. 
 

Besides all that stuff takes decades to go ahead.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

14 hours ago, Sweet11-87 said:

or at the SLR.  the FN fal was designed to be in 280 anyway and its got a proven track record.

Yes or even the good old .303" all are very good in the right hands and used as they can be.

[Ultrastu]

Having watched a few vids now of .223 v .308  or 5.56 v 7.62 nato 

I can see why the 5.56 is the favoured  cal .

It flys  faster  dumps more energy on soft targets  recoils less  is easier to suppress but most of all its 3 times lighter and hence easier to carry .

The only advantage I see of the 7.62 is for targets in excess of 500 yds  which is sniper territory  and the  sniper rifles are chambered in .762  . 

I watched a second vid in this new gun and its seems very ideal for the job in every aspect .

 

 

[udderlyoffroad]

On 09/09/2023 at 13:04, Centrepin said:

The thinking behind "knockdown" power is not to kill but to wound. A kill is one man out of a battle. A wound is 3 or 4 men plus. 1 wounded, 2 to carry and maybe 1 to tend. You then have possibly frightened untrained soldiers crying for mummy from the screams of the wounded, puts them off the fight. 

I think that in a battle for every 5000 rounds fired, 1 man is killed.

If it was genuinely knockdown power then the .303 fired from a Mk 4 Lee Enfield was both more accurate and more efficient than the SLR of 7.62. 5.56 tends to tumble inside the body causing huge exit wounds, it can also enter for example in the buttocks and out of the knee. (That was the first bullet wound I saw).

But, yes I agree 5.56 doesn't have knockdown power on a human. 

This bit of fudd lore has been debunked so many times, it's frankly tedious at this point

Here's one benefit of 5.56 vs. 7.62mm

That's 48k rounds of (admittedly) 7.5x55 GP 11 on the left vs the same amount of 5.56 on the right - but the proportionate volumes for 7.62 mm would be similar.  Taken from this Swiss Army training video.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, Ultrastu said:

Having watched a few vids now of .223 v .308  or 5.56 v 7.62 nato 

I can see why the 5.56 is the favoured  cal .

It flys  faster  dumps more energy on soft targets  recoils less  is easier to suppress but most of all its 3 times lighter and hence easier to carry .

The only advantage I see of the 7.62 is for targets in excess of 500 yds  which is sniper territory  and the  sniper rifles are chambered in .762 . 

You seem to have forgotten about the General Purpose Machine Gun, it has a cracking FOOTPRINT at 500 yards.  

[Centrepin]

4 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

This bit of fudd lore has been debunked so many times, it's frankly tedious at this point

Rubbish

[Sweet11-87]

4 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

This bit of fudd lore has been debunked so many times, it's frankly tedious at this point

 

 

this is apsolutly not fudd lore.  it may not been priority 1 when designing the bullet but its a given that a wounded combatant takes up way more of the logistical chain than a dead one.   most anti personnel devices are designed like this. could easily make a mine that  kills, most mines take the foot off,  even nations that didnt sign the hague dont use expanding ammo becasue its detramental most of the time.

 

[Cal50]

On 09/09/2023 at 12:28, Sweet11-87 said:

5.56 is apsolutly fine and a best choice

the UK are never gona switch outside of NATO standardisation  the US keep looking into it but theyve got the size and money to back it like the recently addopted and then almost instantly unadopted .277 fury. So its a toss up between 5.56 and 7.62 and between the 2 you can carry double the ammount of .5.56 pound for pound, afords the use of lighter built weapons and  the average recruit is going to find it easier to make accurate, fast and consistent hits on target with a 5.56.

 

old SLR sweats incoming.

 

 

Bang on! A far easier round to put on target when sending a few at once and that's the important thing, keeps heads down and can carry more of it.

[NoBodyImportant]

20in barrel does magical things to the 556.  I love my A2 

 

[NoBodyImportant]

14 hours ago, Cal50 said:

Bang on! A far easier round to put on target when sending a few at once and that's the important thing, keeps heads down and can carry more of it.

US doctrine to keep the enemy entertained until the air assets get over head. So more rounds is key. 

[NoBodyImportant]

1 minute ago, NoBodyImportant said:

US doctrine to keep the enemy entertained until the air assets get over head. So more rounds is key. 

I got into the ar platform in the late 90s before it was cool 😎.  Canadian surplus was flooding gun shows at $90 per 1000.  I hated the way they looked but 556 was so cheap I had to get in on it.   The assault weapons ban was in full effect so AR15s were cheapest option to shoot it.  I fell in love with the platform quickly though.  

[ordnance]

Quote

 

The thinking behind "knockdown" power is not to kill but to wound. A kill is one man out of a battle. A wound is 3 or 4 men plus. 1 wounded, 2 to carry and maybe 1 to tend. You then have possibly frightened untrained soldiers crying for mummy from the screams of the wounded, puts them off the fight. 

 

 

I think that was more spin than anything else, if you shoot someone in battle you want to kill them end off. Wonded soldiers can still fight and kill you. 

 Anything would be better than the SA/80. 

[Sweet11-87]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

I think that was more spin than anything else, if you shoot someone in battle you want to kill them end off. Wonded soldiers can still fight and kill you. 

 Anything would be better than the SA/80. 

im sorry like but youre not still in the fight if youre hit centre mass with 5.56. might not kill you outright but you are most definatly man down

[ordnance]

10 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

im sorry like but youre not still in the fight if youre hit centre mass with 5.56. might not kill you outright but you are most definatly man down

Man down could still pull a trigger or a pin, you shoot a man in battle you want to kill not injure him. 

[Sweet11-87]

2 hours ago, ordnance said:

Man down could still pull a trigger or a pin, you shoot a man in battle you want to kill not injure him. 

Well pretty much all of the worlds armed forces and all of the major ones switched from .30 calibre firearms down to .20 calibre firearms about 50 years ago and after about 1000 conflicts none of them to my knowledge have decided to go back to a heavy battle rifle.  

 it’s a bit of a design flaw having a standard issue weapon for your army that’s not  effective in war. Can’t imagine every major force, on the planet has dropped a clanger together and haven’t got round to putting it right. 

[Nuke]

We will get new weapons in the swedish army as well. The non fighting units, app 70%, will get 5.56 and the rest 7.62 (mainly sharp shooters and fighting units) and 338 Lapua magnum for snipers.

/M

[ordnance]

18 hours ago, Sweet11-87 said:

Well pretty much all of the worlds armed forces and all of the major ones switched from .30 calibre firearms down to .20 calibre firearms about 50 years ago and after about 1000 conflicts none of them to my knowledge have decided to go back to a heavy battle rifle.  

 it’s a bit of a design flaw having a standard issue weapon for your army that’s not  effective in war. Can’t imagine every major force, on the planet has dropped a clanger together and haven’t got round to putting it right. 

I am not sure what that has to do with what I posted, I said that it was nonsense that it's preferable to injure rather than kill the enemy. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, ordnance said:

I am not sure what that has to do with what I posted, I said that it was nonsense that it's preferable to injure rather than kill the enemy. 

Well you are WRONG!  

[ordnance]

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Well you are WRONG!  

Educate us then, rather than just you are wrong.  A wounded soldier can still be in the fight and kill you or your comrades, a dead one can't, wounded soldiers can recieve medical aid and return to the fight, dead ones can't.  Weapons of war are designed to kill not injure. 

Edited September 16, 2023 by ordnance