Interesting article Rob, there may be some merit in trialing the 6.5mm round, in existing designs, re chamber and barrel the C8 for a start? Have more hitting power than 5.56, yet smaller and lighter than 7.62 NATO.
What Assault Rifle - British Army Should Replace SA-80 A2 With?
- Thread starter Cutaway
- Start date
Personally I reckon it's the way to go, no point bringing in a new 5.56 for little to no gain at a nasty financial cost that's for sure.
Everything i've heard (from a civilian point of view) about those kind of calibres, 6.5, 6.8 and the like have been pretty much the sort of compromise that people seem to want between the 5.56 & 7.62 NATO.
Interesting point is that - I think - that the Mk17 can come chambered in 6.8 Remington, it's a weapon that the Army trialled too as a DMR (except in 7.62 NATO) but it lost, but that's a different type of requirement.
If only the UK could knock up a rifle in a better cartridge like in .280 (7mm), oh wait
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtjVf724G7w"]em-2 assault rifle test - YouTube[/nomedia]
Everything i've heard (from a civilian point of view) about those kind of calibres, 6.5, 6.8 and the like have been pretty much the sort of compromise that people seem to want between the 5.56 & 7.62 NATO.
Interesting point is that - I think - that the Mk17 can come chambered in 6.8 Remington, it's a weapon that the Army trialled too as a DMR (except in 7.62 NATO) but it lost, but that's a different type of requirement.
If only the UK could knock up a rifle in a better cartridge like in .280 (7mm), oh wait
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtjVf724G7w"]em-2 assault rifle test - YouTube[/nomedia]
LOL! Only problem I see with. 280, is magazine capacity and overall size of the round. 6.5 grendal still gives you 26 round magazine capacity for a standard size M16 mag.
Compromise, but with more stopping power than 5.56, would like see results from an operational valuation/trial.
No questions about the 7mm or .280 rounds effectivness, I have no doubt it would be a good round, but nearly as bulky as 7.62 NATO.
Compromise, but with more stopping power than 5.56, would like see results from an operational valuation/trial.
No questions about the 7mm or .280 rounds effectivness, I have no doubt it would be a good round, but nearly as bulky as 7.62 NATO.
I still think looking into enhanced lethality 5.56mm ammunition, per the United States' M855A1 and Mk. 318 SOST, makes more sense than refitting thousands of service weapons to fire a round with slightly better performance. I think it would end up costing less and it doesn't mean you can't have your various 7.62mm DMRs, battle rifles and machine guns deployed where necessary.
Have a look around for some of the performance figures on the enhanced 5.56mm ammunition, it seems perfectly suitable for continued use. Of course, there's a chance that rifles/carbines would have to be modified in order to safely use the new ammunition depending on whether or not it wears more heavily on the weapon, in which case my cost argument would very likely go out the window...
I've said it a couple of times but an incremental step up in performance from the standard 5.56mm doesn't seem like a good argument for an entirely new rifle or calibre (I know that's not necessarily what you're proposing, however) when performance enhancements can be gained from changing ammunition type, and a full refitting of service rifles held off until a more revolutionary change (and I always quote LSAT here as an example but I don't know if it's still relevant) appears. No point transitioning to a 6.8mm rifle if there's a chance of a big shake up in small arms technology within the next ten-ish years (which I think is quite likely, if the money is there).
I understand there's different nuances to the argument though. It isn't always just "replace the entire arsenal with x new rifle". And I don't have the practical experience that some members have so I'm happy to stand corrected regarding the performance of certain ammunition types and calibres.
But, as per the thread, I don't think the L85A2 needs replacing, least of all with some of the 5.56mm weapons suggested, and if there are questions about lethality then new ammunition types should be explored per the United States' lead. Same goes for the Australian Steyr, in fact I think the latest iteration of that has a lot more to do with the integration of various digital systems onto the weapon rather than any attempts to increase lethality of individual weapons fire. The changes in overall small arms composition of a section or squad also interests me, an example being the adoption of the M27 rifle by the USMC. It's an interesting approach.
Anyway, now I'm just waffling.
PS SteelTiger, if you want to understand the relationship between the Galil and the Kalashnikov, just do a little googling about the weapon. But I would not, as the original poster did, put the Galil in the "AK family".
Have a look around for some of the performance figures on the enhanced 5.56mm ammunition, it seems perfectly suitable for continued use. Of course, there's a chance that rifles/carbines would have to be modified in order to safely use the new ammunition depending on whether or not it wears more heavily on the weapon, in which case my cost argument would very likely go out the window...
I've said it a couple of times but an incremental step up in performance from the standard 5.56mm doesn't seem like a good argument for an entirely new rifle or calibre (I know that's not necessarily what you're proposing, however) when performance enhancements can be gained from changing ammunition type, and a full refitting of service rifles held off until a more revolutionary change (and I always quote LSAT here as an example but I don't know if it's still relevant) appears. No point transitioning to a 6.8mm rifle if there's a chance of a big shake up in small arms technology within the next ten-ish years (which I think is quite likely, if the money is there).
I understand there's different nuances to the argument though. It isn't always just "replace the entire arsenal with x new rifle". And I don't have the practical experience that some members have so I'm happy to stand corrected regarding the performance of certain ammunition types and calibres.
But, as per the thread, I don't think the L85A2 needs replacing, least of all with some of the 5.56mm weapons suggested, and if there are questions about lethality then new ammunition types should be explored per the United States' lead. Same goes for the Australian Steyr, in fact I think the latest iteration of that has a lot more to do with the integration of various digital systems onto the weapon rather than any attempts to increase lethality of individual weapons fire. The changes in overall small arms composition of a section or squad also interests me, an example being the adoption of the M27 rifle by the USMC. It's an interesting approach.
Anyway, now I'm just waffling.
PS SteelTiger, if you want to understand the relationship between the Galil and the Kalashnikov, just do a little googling about the weapon. But I would not, as the original poster did, put the Galil in the "AK family".
What if the .280 bullet is fired via a LSAT CTA cartridge? Also of note is that .280 could replace both 5.56 and 7.62 as a MG round and be better than both.
the road runner
Active Member
One this is for sure,there are a number of projectiles available these day's that preform better than 5.56 and 7.62.
Is it that ,good enough is ok,or is it the cost of introducing new tooling and re issuing new weapons/doctrine that is holding back an introduction of newer projectiles?
I assume stock piles of 7.62 and 5.56 would be huge.
Is it that ,good enough is ok,or is it the cost of introducing new tooling and re issuing new weapons/doctrine that is holding back an introduction of newer projectiles?
I assume stock piles of 7.62 and 5.56 would be huge.
Doctrine for small arms? No… It’s all about sunk costs. Why the US kyboshed the .280/7mm in the first place. Because 7.62x51mm reused all of their tooling for building barrels and ammo. But if you adopted the LSAT ammunition the only thing you could reuse on the new weapons and ammo is the barrels. So if you were to change to the LSAT weaponry you could include a new calibre in there without much drama.
And LSAT is definitely about the most interesting thing to come out recently - I don't know where they are in terms of testing but reducing the weight of ammunition by 30% would be very welcome. Last testing update was 2012, things seemed to be going well so, fingers crossed.
http://www.army.mil/article/80320/
http://www.army.mil/article/80320/
LSAT is over. It achieved its aims but was always a demonstrator, ground breaker program. Its up to someone else now to pick up the flag and run with it.
Think that sounds very interesting, do I think its going to happen soon, no way.
But, The thought of going 7mm LSAT is exciting insnt it?!
Given that an LSAT LMG and 1000 rds of caseless ammo, weighs 2.8 pounds less than 5.56mm link alone opens up a can of worms. If only the US adopts it....I can for see some resistance from old school Generals, and small arms manufacturers though.
Dammit ...
In the 1970's I was promised nuclear sky cars, a moon base and cool stuff by 1980. Here we are in the actual 21st Century and we don't even get telescoped rounds.
TANJ...