Shuggy

No, I remember that 5% rule too! I am sure that your load is fine.

Whatever happens with low charge breech explosions, it is most unlikely to be a ‘detonation’ (shock front faster than the speed of sound in the material). It’s likely to be pressure spikes associated with burning front reflections and refractions.

Highly doped, fast burning double based propellants such as Bullseye or Viht N310 can be made to detonate, but will require a bit of special encouragement to do so (happy memories of an explosives engineer!).

Very impressive. And he showed great humility too.

Thank you. I always worry about the usual dire warnings of going below published minimum loads!

38 minutes ago, Kipper said:

Sfp as you need a fine cross hair ( imagine trying to see a target at 1000yards with a magnified reticle) and definitely moa turrets for fclass.. like popsbengo said, its a known distance with rings at moa spacings so hold over is easy regardless off magnification used..

 

That's my penny's worth

Personally, I think too much is made of this. The centre of the P4FL reticle on my FFP PMII will subtend just 1.3 inches at 1000 yards. That’s plenty fine enough to quarter the bull. But I quite agree that a SFP fine reticle is more popular for pure target work.

17 hours ago, Andrew said:

Unique will also work. I've forgotten: Does  LOVEX make Accurate Arms's 5744? If so that is a certain winner once the bullet diameter is sorted. About 17 - 18.5  grains, NEVER a filler. I won many military rifle BR comps with that load adjusted a grain one way or the other depending on the cartridge I was using. I shot mostly Finns and Brits (they were ridiculously inexpensive in those days) and 18.5 grains with a 200 ish grain bullet, well fit to the gun and seated to kiss the lands, would often shoot as well as my eyes and skill would allow. I hope you get as much enjoyment chucking Pb from your Lee as I do my mine.~Andrew

Hi Andrew, the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook lists a starting load of 20 grains of 5744 with a 200 grain bullet. How did you come to settle on 18.5 grains?

This might just add a bit of perspective to the debate, but it probably depends on whether you believe the official statistics or not.

Just noticed - my 1,000th post. UKV really is rather absorbing!

Probably the vast majority of target shooters prefer SFP and MOA, with a fine reticle. If you dial for wind, a ‘plot sheet’ will give you the corrections based on the marked fall of shot at each range. However, quite a few people seem to like getting a rough zero and then holding for wind.

However, once you try FFP Mil/Mil, you will never want to go back, for all the reasons that Edi explained. It’s just so much easier.

3 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Indeed, and the kit we have to generate them doesn’t seem very fit for purpose!

I’m no armourer but are there new receivers still around? It would seem as if they’d wear out eventually. Only 200,000 were converted to A2 so is that stock finite?

My understanding is that there is no shortage of receivers. The armed forces are much smaller than they once were, plus there are now all of the LSW receivers which can be used for spares.

But you are right. One day we will run out of receivers, so at that point it will be time for a new rifle. There was talk at one time of H&K tooling up to make new receivers, but I have no idea if that was done.

Of course, the other thing that could change the equation would be if there was some big ‘leap-ahead’ in technology. It remains to be seen if the US NGSW programme will deliver that - we shall see, but the US Army track record on small-arms development is not a great one. And like it or not, Defence budgets will constrain choices.

9 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

That could lead us down a whole new rabbit hole with coordinate category!

 

But to bring it back on track... Is direct impingement still considered the better method of cycling the action over gas piston? 
 

And unless I’m out of the loop and they’ve already begun, it will be very interesting to see what is trialled to replace the A3. Not that it doesn’t serve a purpose currently, more that at some point they will reach a stage where they’re not repairable/upgradeable!

The general view from many official trials is that in well-designed weapons, DI has the better potential for accuracy, whilst pistons have the better potential for reliability. Of course, there will always be exceptions!

I am not aware of any plans to replace the A3 anytime soon. As long as H&K keep making spare parts, the system can be kept going pretty much forever.

Thankfully such biased opinions from Defence Academy staff and others do not influence decisions where it matters. Like I said, the conclusion from an exhaustive series of trials was that the LMG just wasn’t very good - either at hitting the enemy, or at suppressing them. There was a good article about the trials in Soldier magazine. I will see if I can find it.

Yes - the theory is that it’s the noise of the crack that really influences suppression. So we are now using belt fed GPMGs to suppress - the idea is certainly not considered to be passe.

I have to say though, most of the folks that I have met from ITDU have been proper warry types such as Royal Marines and line infantry, rather than SASC. They are a pretty impressive and professional bunch.

Suppression - there was some operational analysis done in Afghanistan of the suppression effects of various calibres. I am summarising, but it essentially concluded that ‘12.7 makes them run away, 7.62 makes them drop and 5.56 they ignore’.

I once saw an Army officer explaining the theory of suppression with the LMG at great length to a USMC colonel, which involved lots of drawn out detail and much waving of arms. The USMC officer listened carefully with a quiet smile and then said (in a southern accent): “That’s just great, but why wouldn’t y’all just kill him instead?”.

I find it kind of interesting that the British Army and the USMC have now arrived in much the same place, but from different directions. The UK are now using their IW as a LSW, whilst the USMC are now using their LSW/IAR (the M27) as an IW.

Small Arms School Corps and the Infantry Trials and Development Unit 🙂

I believe that they tested the LMG with the longer barrel as well - and it was still hopeless.

On the contrary, the 51mm mortar was an absolutely superb weapon - great for smoke and illumination and highly deadly in skilled hands with HE. However there was not a competitive market for the ammunition and it would have been incredibly expensive to procure more. A real shame.

I will look out for the next issue of BAR!

And breathe! 😀

I completely agree that the C8 has positive points in terms of both weight and ambidexterity - those are obvious. I would also add modularity and the ability to fit an upper with a shorter barrel.

However in almost any other objective criteria in terms of accuracy, reliability, durability, whole life costs, equipment failure reports, hit probability etc. the result is either a wash or the SA80 A2/A3 is considerably better. 

The LSW and LMG were both binned based on objective evidence from an exhaustive series of instrumented live fire experiments, not on opinion thank goodness (that’s how we got the LSW and LMG in the first place). These trials showed beyond any doubt that the effectiveness of the LSW was no better than the IW; and that the LMG was absolutely hopeless.

Opinions are entirely valid of course, especially when they are based on real world experience. However evidence-based decision making has to be the right approach for procurement.  

There is a true story about how the booties came to ‘choose’ the C8, but I am afraid that it can’t be told here; and I am quite sure that it will never feature in any official narrative. Suffice it to say that they have been pushing for an AR15 pattern weapon for 35 years and have finally got their way.

And please let’s not confuse stories about the old SA80 A1 with the A3. There is simply no comparison.

I would imagine that magazine feeding is a bit more straightforward with a 6.5 PRC.

I believe that the Dolphin chassis uses a standard AR15 grip. MDT makes a nice looking vertical grip that should fit: https://www.blackrifle.co.uk/MDT-Vertical-Grip-p/mdt-vert.htm

For the price, you really can’t beat the NRA contract 155grn GGG, loaded with the Sierra Matchking bullet. It seems to shoot vey tight groups. It’s even better value if you buy the allegedly ‘dodgy’ 2019 batch. However, this ammo is only available at Bisley.

As others have said, HPS is also very good, if a bit more expensive. I have also seen it for sale at several gunshops. If you want to shoot at longer ranges, you will need a tolerant bullet with good transonic behaviours, given the lower velocities from your shorter barrel. The 155grn stuff can work pretty well on warmer days, but I have found that the HPS 190grn shoots a bit tighter past 800 yards.

For shorter ranges, I would just buy a couple of cases of MEN 147grn ball ammo at about half the cost of the GGG and enjoy! Despite the cost, this still shoots very well.

Personally, I would avoid PPU, S&B, Federal and other cheaper FMJ ball rounds as they never seem to shoot as well.

2 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

A fascinating insight to a different world of target shooting sports.  I'd like to add that a badly adjusted parallax adjustment on a scope has caused many a wayward shot.  Unfortunately perfect target focus and correct parallax isn't always the same point on many scopes.  The only scope I own that's spot-on is my S&B PM11.  My NF Comp is ever so slightly soft when dead on.  I'm yet to try a Delta in anger,  

I find the head-bob method of looking for relative movement of the aiming point and cross hairs works well enough.

I still meet people that think the ocular is used to focus the target!

Maybe not so different. I am always impressed by what we can all learn from the serious target disciplines; after all the fundamentals are the fundamentals. The challenges of shooting .22 rimfire and airguns are great for building up skills that can be applied elsewhere.

Is that an older model? The cheek piece looks different from the current stocks.

Oh and you need to put your location as per the forum sales rules or the mods will be after you!

I saw that the Shooting Shed does such conversions and I have to say it’s one of the better looking LBRs out there. I am sure that he would know the answer to your question.

I don’t think that there’s any reason why you cannot serialise it, travel across with it on your Canadian PAL and then simply enter it onto your UK FAC which grants you permission to possess. But the advice to work closely with your FEO is obviously the right way to proceed.

I have little doubt that Section 11(4) exemptions are used responsibly by the ordinary.22 clubs that use them. But this was another thing entirely. All clubs in my experience are very good at weeding out any undesirable characters through their rigorous probationary procedures. But here the undesirable characters actually founded the club!

I’m not too sure though about the ‘funfair’ type operations. My view of those was rather changed when I was hit by a ricochet whilst walking past the one at a previous British Shooting Show. When I complained, the operator just shrugged.  

2 hours ago, Catch-22 said:

That looks like an Area419 ARCA rail that’s been cerakoted. 
It is ‘toothed’ to provide extra rigidity and stop the ARCA mount sliding back and forth too easily.

https://www.area419.com/product/arcalock-univ14/

Thank you, that has to be it. But is it their Universal rail or their Keymod rail? Perhaps Dave will comment. One hears mixed stories about the compatibility between Keymod and Keyslot.

The other alternative for an AI would be the Victor Company HR1 handguard, but that does look like a pricey option.