UK selects 7.62 mm Sharpshooter weapon

[brown dog]

A pal gave me a heads-up to this yesterday. Thought it maybe of interest:

 

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091229_1_n.shtml

[Ballistic Hamster]

Sorry you can't have one mate !!

[tulkyuk]

I think he can Trigger

It's also about time our boys had better stopping power, especially with most of the rag heads firing back using AK's and 7.62x39mm rounds

 

Trouble is there is also a saying that goes " Remember your weapon was produced by the lowest bidder"

[ds1]

Surprised by company (Lewis Machine) not by platform - semi auto 308 and bolt 338.

 

I would have put money on it being a HK417 though.......or if a DI system KAC Mod O mkII.....SR25ish.

[LONG RANGE CAPT]

Interesting choice as not battle proven.

 

I would of liked to of thought the natural choice would be one that is battle proven and in current use:-

 

The H&K 417 has numerous users:-

 

UK = SRR / SFSG / SBS / SAS (any other S's)

 

United States - Various police departments

Albania – Special Forces

Mexico - The Mexican Navy and Army special forces

France - The Navy special forces and Army special forces

Netherlands - The Netherlands Army Korps Commandotroepen

Norway - The Norwegian Army DMR

Portugal - The Portuguese special forces of GNR (COE

Slovenia - The Slovenian Police Special

 

LMT = Ummm, limited.

 

Interesting choice of opereating system ''direct gas impingment'' I thought moving forward ''gas piston'' was the way ahead ?

 

And the UOR trials choose the cheapest (Hmmm - have we not been here before - me thinks we have !!!)

 

Well even if the wrong one is chosen you can throw money at it till its, well sort of fixed:-

 

 

 

 

Regards

 

Rob

[eldon]

Just reading up on the HK 417.

What do they actually mean by "Accurized barrels provide 1 MOA accuracy".

How do they actually accurize them as it goes on to say they are hammer forged ?

 

Maybe a position in the market here for all the remington barrels

[Redfox]

In mass production a properly hammer forged and stress relieved barrel is not to be sneezed at, it is capable of far more than the shooters who abuse it. It is not made by a couple of blacksmiths belting a red hot tube on an anvil you know, it is a sophisticated process which has been well thoughtout over a mandrel which is better finshed than a machine cut barrel, it just doesnt get the hand lapping and finishing that a custom barrel gets.

Also this is aimed at the needs of the squaddies not the snipers who do a lot more training to get their badge.

I understand the logic and political pressure behind the 5.56 decision but always felt the 7.62 was better overall, or the 280 if it had been adopted and developed here.

Redfox

[brown dog]

I understand the logic and political pressure behind the 5.56 decision

 

5.56 is fine for what it was designed for -cold war & any hit counts. Nice to carry too. But wasn't really designed for stopping a determined charge by ten thousand Watutsi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and dry guava halves in its tracks ...but

that wasn't the game back then

[LONG RANGE CAPT]

5.56 is fine for what it was designed for -cold war & any hit counts. Nice to carry too. But wasn't really designed for stopping a determined charge by ten thousand Watutsi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and dry guava halves in its tracks ...and that wasn't the game back then

 

Matt,

 

When the 5.56 was invented the prerequisite for any battle was that the enemy should under no circumstances carry guns.

If you saw someone in a skirt, you shot him and nicked his country.

[ds1]

A couple of alphabet groups here have the HK417. Mixed reports really, picky on ammo to shoot ok - it has a strange twist (can not remember what)....something to do with subsonics I seem to remember. Anyway accuracy was crap with 168grain FedGM. Suggested trying heavier. Secondly from a plod view point you can buy 2 TRG22's for the price of one HK though meaningless in terms of army use. Still a lot of army lads here get the Dragunov with 4x scope as a DM rifle.

 

What will also be interesting is what optics will be on the new stick - the one in the pic has a USO sn3 1.8-10 x 37 (44) on it, good but I would still like a J point on mine also or S&B 1-4x short dot would seem the mutts nuts at the moment.

[eldon]

It is not made by a couple of blacksmiths belting a red hot tube on an anvil you know,

Ah redfox you spoilt my illusion, one time I suppose we would have had the skill now I suppose it would have to be done by machine

 

It was the accurizing bit that I was referring to, rather than the belting it with an hammer.

 

 

Ds 1, the twist rate was 1 in 11" in the article I was reading.

[Zaitsev]

Didn't we used to have one of these? Wasn't it made in Belgium? Wasn't it pretty much bombproof and accurate?

 

(Saying that I know nothing of its shortcomings if any, or what it was like to shoot)

[Ratwhiskers]

l always thought the bloody battle field was not a fit place for Research and Developement.

 

lf the powers that be want such a toy let them take it out to the Sand Box and test it, and not to rely on the lad's to do it for them.

[brown dog]

Didn't we used to have one of these? Wasn't it made in Belgium? Wasn't it pretty much bombproof and accurate?

 

(Saying that I know nothing of its shortcomings if any, or what it was like to shoot)

 

Can't comment on accuracy, but a very recently retired boss of mine (who was into his shooting, and told me that he used to own a bespoke foresight blade and aperture that he would take from posting to posting and have them fitted to his issue rifle ) once let slip a comment "ah, 29th of May -or 'day of the exploding heads' as I prefer to call it......" and, after much prompting, described a morning in which he had time to take windage and elevation tester shots that allowed him drop some unfortunate Argy officer who kept popping into view at very long range ....with open sights ).

 

Anyway, I believe the SLR was simply mechanically worn-out by the time it went .....and UK plc gave them away (to, amongst others, the West Side Boys )

[devilishdave]

I had an SLR as a young lad and I can tell you it is over rated by nostalgic ex soldiers. Not a bad bit of kit in it's day though to be fair. The SA80A2 is leagues ahead of the SLR in what is needed by the average soldier in todays battlefield although the 7.62 as you all know hits harder and further than the 5.56 the only advantage the SLR had over the SA80A2.

 

Interestingly I beleive the Americans are chopping in their Rem M24 for somthing similar to this offering from McKnight Armaments. This will be a good weapon for the section comander to have in his tool box.

 

Dave

[Orka Akinse]

Not one usually to try and deflect the topic but it always gets me a wry smile to think the UK Govt consider the 5.56mm cal. good enough to send our hero's into battle and put down the enemy but not good enough to stop a roe

 

Osprey on and velcro'd tight

[devilishdave]

Yeh it is an interesting point but if we realy wanted to hit people hard we would be using VMAX or balistic tips or bring back the Dum Dum but rules is rules!!

 

Dave

[nemasis243]

From my understanding 3 suppliers were looked at HK being one of them,

At the end of the day yep it comes down to £££££££££

It has been tested but so was the SA80 when it was first thrown at the sqaddie,was it any good ,no

I have heard mixed results on this rifle from guys who were involved in testing, they said that as far as the design it was ok ,but sometimes when in dusty conditions it has been prone to siezing up , something which I believe has been looked at now.

Also if they start to issue a scope mounted rifle to a normal trooper is he gonna go down the path of dialling in for a shot,or will they keep the standard 4x mag susat on it.

If your enemy is 800yrds away would you better incorporating 30% of you squad into sniper trained marksmen with the right tool for the job?

Fireing 50rnds at an estimated target 800yrds+ away might hit one or two, but you put a few guys who know what their doing in there with the rite toys (338lap ) that will change the order of the day.

[brown dog]

if we realy wanted to hit people hard we would be using VMAX or balistic tips

 

Which would be fine until you wanted to shoot through something they've decided to hide behind!

 

Fireing 50rnds at an estimated target 800yrds+ away might hit one or two, but you put a few guys who know what their doing in there with the rite toys (338lap ) that will change the order of the day.

 

I think that this rifle is about winning the medium range skittles contest in which you have multiple skittles at multiple ranges that you want to drop right now; bolt actions are no good for that. Skittles are a speed event.

 

Bolt actions are even crapper if you suddenly find yourself in a short range skittles contest.........particularly if the game is being played indoors.

 

[devilishdave]

Yeh that was said tongue in cheek the main issue is the geneva convention ref balistic tips and if you want penetration you can always go for AP.

 

Dave

[LONG RANGE CAPT]

Interesting point ref the Geneva convention, how are armed police can use some highly effective expanding ammo. But we can't shoot are enemys on the battlefield with the same. Hmmm but yet we can throw all sorts of other technology at them.

[devilishdave]

I stand corrected it was the Hague Convention

 

Early bullets were typically made in the form of spheres of nearly pure lead, which is a very soft material. These would often flatten upon impact with the target, causing a larger wound than the original diameter of the ball. The adoption of rifling allowed the use of longer, heavier bullets, but these were still typically constructed of soft lead and would often double in diameter upon impact. In this case expansion was a side effect of materials, and there is no evidence that the bullets were designed to expand upon impact.[5]

 

The earliest examples of bullets specifically designed to expand on impact were those fired by express rifles, which were developed in the mid 19th century. Express rifles used larger powder charges and lighter bullets than typical for the time to achieve very high velocities for black powder cartridges. One method of lightening the bullets used was to provide a deep cavity in the nose of the bullet. These were the first hollow point bullets, and in addition to developing higher velocities, they also expanded significantly upon impact. These hollow point bullets worked well on thin-skinned game, but tended to come apart on bigger game, resulting in insufficient penetration. One solution to this was the "cruciform expanding bullet", a solid bullet with an X shaped incision in the tip. This split section expanded to the depth of the incision, and then stopped, making it an early form of controlled expansion bullet.[6]

 

In the late 19th century, the invention of Cordite and other nitrocellulose based "smokeless" propellants permitted higher velocity than black powder, along with flatter trajectories and correspondingly higher hit probabilities. However to limit the amount of recoil to an acceptable level meant that higher velocity rounds needed lighter (and thus smaller diameter) bullets.

 

Soon after the introduction of smokeless powder to firearms, full metal jacket bullets were introduced to prevent lead fouling in the bore caused by the higher pressures and velocities when used with soft lead bullets.[7] However, it was soon noticed that such small caliber rounds were less effective at wounding or killing an enemy than the older large caliber soft lead bullets. Within the British Indian Army, the Dum Dum arsenal produced its now infamous solution - the jacketing was removed from the nose of the bullet, creating the first soft point bullets. Since the Mark II jacket did not cover the base of the round this could potentially lead to the jacketing being left in the barrel. This potential problem resulted in the rejection of the Dum-dum design, and independent development of the Mark III, Mark IV (1897) and Mark V (1899) .303 British rounds, which were of the hollow point design, with the jacket covering the base; while these were made in Britain, not at the Dum-Dum arsenal, the name "Dum-dum" had already become associated with expanding bullets, and continued to be used to refer to any expanding bullets. The expanding bullets expanded upon impact to a diameter significantly greater than the original .312 inch (7.62 mm) bullet diameter, producing larger diameter wounds than the full metal jacketed versions. The Mark IV was successful enough in its first use at Omdurman that British soldiers issued with the standard Mark II bullets began to remove the top of the jacket, converting the Mark II bullets into improvised Dum-dum types.[8]

 

In 1898, the German government lodged a protest against the use of the Mark IV bullet, claiming the wounds produced by the Mark IV were excessive and inhumane, thus violating the laws of war. The protest, however, was based on the comparison of the wounds produced by expanding and non-expanding bullets from high velocity sporting rifles, rather than a comparison of the expanding .303 British bullets with the previous, large bore service cartridge it replaced, the .577/450 Martini-Henry.[9] Because the energy was roughly the same, the wounds caused by the expanding bullet of the .303 were less severe than the those caused by the larger caliber, solid lead bullet used by the Martini-Henry.[10]

 

The German protests were effective however, resulting in the ban of the use of expanding bullets in warfare. The British replaced the hollow point bullets with new full metal jacket bullets, and used the remaining stocks of expanding bullets for practice.[11]

 

[edit] Law

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in international warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body, giving as example a bullet with a jacket with incisions or one that does not fully cover the core.[12] This prohibition was an expansion of the Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams. During the Convention, representatives from Imperial Germany provided evidence of severe expansion in flesh, however these experiments were severely criticized by the British because they used higher powered German sporting cartridges with expanding bullets, and compared results only to the earlier, non-expanding .303 bullets. No comparison was made with the terminal effects of the non-jacketed, large bore bullets used just a few decades before by militaries around the world, such as the .577 caliber (14.7 mm) Snider-Enfield and the .45 caliber (11.4 mm) Martini-Henry which the .303 replaced.[13]

 

Because of the greater effectiveness in disabling or killing the target, the use of expanding rounds remains legal, or even required, in some circumstances. Examples of this are use of appropriately expanding bullets in hunting, where it is desirable to stop the animal quickly either to prevent loss of a game animal, or ensure a humane death of vermin, and in law enforcement or self defense, where quickly disabling an aggressor may be needed to prevent further loss of life.[14]

 

 

Dave

[brown dog]

Interesting point ref the Geneva convention, how are armed police can use some highly effective expanding ammo. But we can't shoot are enemys on the battlefield with the same. Hmmm but yet we can throw all sorts of other technology at them.

 

Not wishing to reveal myself as a spotter (unlike whoever corrected you over Hague vs Geneva Dave! ) but our ammo isn't selected on the basis of the Hague convention; as it only applies to warfare between thesignatories. In LOAC terms you could use expanding ammo against anyone else.

Why don't we? Partly Western taste/sensibilities but mainly boring practicality:

Small arms calibre/velocity/lethality/penetration/recoil/heating/weight etc choices are balanced (much like the 'firepower/mobility/protection' trade offs in tank design) to come up with the best compromise solution. A whole bunch of criteria are applied to what the compromise must deliver in lethality terms. Last time I was apprised of this the NATO criteria was the 'defence 30 second criteria'; that is a hit to a motivated individual in a non-immediately incapacitating area was to deliver incapacitation within 30 seconds of the hit. [There's a dose of reality there because it's judged that, in practical terms, no shoulder fired small arms proj can immediately incapacitate unless it hits CNS/heart.] If I remember correctly (I might not, and I may be out of date too), that was judged to be the proj delivering min 80J to the target having passed through 3mm of steel (that means 80J whilst passing right through is OK). The 3mm of steel represents a helmet/ body armour/ light cover.

 

As a compromise, seems pretty sensible to me ....but what wouldn't seem sensible to me is having to change mags from soft point to AP because someone's ducked behind a wall or vehicle door

[devilishdave]

Just because the enemy don’t play by the rules doesn't mean we drop to their standard although perhaps legally we could. For example why don’t we interrogate people the same way they do? If we do or did there would be an outcry from our own people.

 

We already have small arms AP ammo that can be used as and when required. I take your point reference changing mags but TBH I wouldn’t stand behind a car door whilst some one sent 150grain SST at said door at 2800fps!!

 

The whole argument is pointless because we use ammo that is in line with the Hague convention irrespective of our enemy unless you can categorically tell me differently.

 

Dave

[Tiff]

Not sure where it all fits in, but are we technically not at war? So surely the rules of war do not apply?

 

The Americans refuse to acknowledged Al Qaede as an army (so guessing we don't either) and I think the Taliban are held under the same regard. Thereby allowing the Cuba detention centers to remain, since not under the POW remit.