UK selects 7.62 mm Sharpshooter weapon

[brown dog]

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.

Which was my Western taste/sensibilities point above.

 

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!!

Not sure if you caught the central point of my post: The ball ammo we have is a compromise choice designed to do OK at whatever you might face; not 'OK' at one option and shite at everything else.

And we live in a world of compromise.

 

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.

 

Firstly, it'd be remiss of me to fail to point out that it was you who introduced the vmax idea

 

Secondly, see preceding answer........and don't just think about it in 'what's in my mag' terms, think about it in terms of procurement too.

I don't think we'll be going to single theatre natures anytime soon.

 

[Guest Scotland Rifles]

Happy new year Tim,

 

I am just pleased our lads have something with a bit more power behind it now,

 

i always thought the 5.56 was pi55 poor - in the field,

 

it works OK on those f11's on range A at Bulford but no range at all,(600 yards max i think)

 

now in a 7.62 they stand a chance of hitting things a bit further away and with more humph ,(or is it because the 50 cal cost to much to feed )

 

 

so we would have 7.62 like we did a long time ago, (slr/gpmg/lmg but to mention few)

 

the 30cal on light armour like we did a long time ago,( on top of the FSC ferret scout car when i was a lad in the army)

 

and keep the 50 cal, like we had a long time ago,( used on the chieftain MBT tank as a ranging gun with a 3 shot solenoid controlled busts) exploding tip ammo as well,

 

Vmax would be good on a direct hit, but not sure how effective it would be in the general use it would need to cover in all situations

 

Just my thought as a ex tankie.

 

bob.

[Redfox]

Vmax, hopeless basically, it is intended for thin skinned animals and varmints only. I have seen several deer badly wounded with large surface wounds ( going gangrenous) where it has hit the shoulder bone and literally exploded in the thin skin /flesh layer over the bone. As BD says no good if the target bobs down behind a dirt wall etc or has any type of armour on.

The copper jacketed round will put them down and discourage them greatly.

The SLR like the US M14 was too good for the job in hand, susceptible to grit and dirt or lack of cleaning, and the darned gas plug and piston would steadily slow down as it got dirtier, also too heavy to tote round the battlefield too. Shame as it was pretty accurate, but the AK47 and Galil were much nearer the mark for the squaddies, which this is not intended for either.

I used the slr in the forces and owned one until the mad backlash after Hungerford.

 

Redfox

[DL.]

When I read the doctrine,it said that the 5.56 offered superior penetraition to the 7.62 down range on a dummy with helmet & body armour on, I know any test can be arranged to give the required results,but the choice of round wasn't done without thought, I would rather carry 800 5.56 than 800 7.62!

[Guest Scotland Rifles]

When I read the doctrine,it said that the 5.56 offered superior penetration to the 7.62 down range on a dummy with helmet & body armour on, I know any test can be arranged to give the required results,but the choice of round wasn't done without thought, I would rather carry 800 5.56 than 800 7.62!

 

 

I would be the other way around. 800 7.62 and leave the 5.56 in the scrap bin.

 

 

7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm - Does NATO

Really Need Two Standard Rifle Calibers

CSC 1986

SUBJECT AREA General

TITLE: 7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm - Does NATO Really Need Two

Standard Rifle Calibers?

I. Purpose: To reestablish the 7.62mm NATO cartridge as the

optimum rifle caliber ammunition for the U. S. and NATO.

 

II. Problem: NATO recently adopted the 5.56mm as its second

standard rifle caliber cartridge. As a result, the existing NATO

standard, the 7.62mm, has been relegated to a secondary

supporting role within NATO's armed forces. Although the

selection of the 5.56mm was based on extensive testing, research,

and documented battle performance, this intermediate power round

is not the optimum ammunition and caliber for U. S. and NATO

forces in the contemplated battlefields of the future.

 

III. Discussion: Proponents of the intermediate power 5.56mm

have continuously compared their smaller cartridge to the large

full power 7.62mm. The results of these comparisons purportedly

show the superiority of the smaller ammunition in the areas of

penetration, lethality, weapon portability, and fire power.

Careful examination of these tests and the touted advantages of

the 5.56mm, however, shows that the 7.62mm is still potentially

superior to the smaller round. For example, in the NATO tests,

researchers have compared a modern, semi-armor piercing round of

ammunition (5.56mm) against a standard ball cartridge

(7.62mm) that has not been improved since its adoption in 1953.

An improved 7.62mm NATO, using the same technology as the

5.56mm, would definitely out-perform the smaller cartridge. With

respect to portability, second generation 7.62mm rifles are

smaller, more compact, and very comparable to certain 5.56mm

weapons. Concerning fire power, any full automatic fire with

light assault rifles, even with the low-recoil 5.56mm, is not

effective and only results in a waste of ammunition. In

addition, new technological developments in body armor may soon

defeat the penetration capability of the small 5.56mm. New

developments in optical sighting equipment will soon increase

battlefield engagement ranges and thereby exceed the long range

accuracy capability of the smaller 5.56mm. The large case and

projectile of the 7.62mm, however, are more than sufficient to

accept significant improvements in penetration, lethality, and

long range performance. This will allow the 7.62mm to remain

effective on future battlefields.

 

IV. Conclusion: The 5.56mm will, at best, only be an interim

NATO standard. Due to its small size, further improvements of

the 5.56mm will be insufficient to keep up with the changing

requirements of future battlefields. Overall, the older 7.62mm

NATO is a better standard cartridge since it has the capacity and

the flexibility to be significantly improved and thereby remain

effective.

 

V. Recommendations: The 7.62mm NATO cartridge should be

developed with current technology to improve its penetration,

lethality, and overall-performance. Modern weapons systems

should be further developed to utilize the 7.62mm. No, NATO does

not need two standard rifle calibers.

Major Vern T. Miyagi Conference Group 6

 

I think this says it all really, but the MOD have pockets to line and backhanders to pay out, so until they really sit down and listen to the guys who use the stuff (at the sharp end) they will be happily sat puffing on a king Edward swilling a top spec brandy back at our boys expense.

 

bob.

[devilishdave]

I agree ref having 800 5.56 rather than 7.62 but it will be great to have a 7.62 sharp shooter rifle at section level. I am surprised they haven't redistributed and supplemented the L96 now it has been widely superseded by the L115A3. Don’t think a 7.62 Ball or AP or anything else 7.62 for that matter will penetrate a dirt wall in a compound in Afghanistan. Even .50 and GMG wont go through many of them.

 

Dave

[Redfox]

IF you wish to bare your backside behind a dirt wall, I will have 3-4rds at it , the first wont get through , the second will make you very nervous and the third/fourth will convert it into dog meat unless its a couple of feet thick, then Ill just use a mini gun and not count.

Redfox

[DL.]

This was addressed at around the turn of the millenium,I just did a search for "manoeuvre support section" & came across a sticky on arrse that has 768 replies!

 

It is a funny thing that British efforts to adopt a .280 calibre where over looked by the US, and then with the passage of time we find the 6.8 SPC being favoured.

 

Having a sharpshooter weapon does seem to be a very sensible idea,the LSW was a pup, a more up to date LMG would have saved a whole lot of hassle.

Extend the range, make the bad guys keep their heads down.

[Guest Scotland Rifles]

I have to agree with this part,

 

V. Recommendations: The 7.62mm NATO cartridge should be

developed with current technology to improve its penetration,

lethality, and overall-performance. Modern weapons systems

should be further developed to utilize the 7.62mm.

 

I am not a fan of the 5.56 at all even the minimi was/is pants

 

lets hope they get it.

 

bob.

[Chris-NZ]

..

The SLR like the US M14 was too good for the job in hand, .... Shame as it was pretty accurate..

Redfox

 

They're a nice rifle to shoot for a military one. Come up well and have a solid feel to them. I could see how they'd become heavy in battle conditions, even ignoring the ammo weight.

 

Once had a go with a Steyr AUG on full auto. Horrible thing- the Army guy showed me the basics and handed it over. I lined it up and pulled (and pulled) the trigger- nothing happened. Asked him how to turn the safety off (thinking I'd mis-heard him) and his reply was "It's off, just pull harder". Was DEF more than 10lbs pull. They sure are Tupperware specials but I guess light weight has its advantages

 

Chris-NZ

[Zaitsev]

I guess that the intermediate cartridges are still out of the question?

 

.280 British anyone? (I've forgotten the official designation)

 

Good performance for less recoil and 2/3rds the weight of ammo.

 

Was it the Taden gun that was a s/auto designed for this round?

 

I suppose that the performance would be very similar to the 6.8 spc but haven't compared the two.

 

.284 as oopposed to .277 shouldn't make much odds.

[ds1]

I think rainforest have died for the 223 v 308 debate. I would like to believe that both are good clubs to have in the golf bag. One thought in terms of hit probability on skittles, one may find that 308 has a better hit probability at longer ranges. However as distances decrease 223 would overtake 308, so the question becomes do you want to hit more skittles close up of further out - if the answer is both = 308 and DM training.

 

However.....it now looks like said DM`s are getting an AR10 based rifle which looks different than a SA80, making them gold coloured skittles. The septic tanks may have had a better idea with M4`s plus KAC AR10`s - looking like each other.......M14`s less so but more reliable.

 

The kool kit is now piston driven.......it has two or three advantages, cleaner, runs cooler and works with short barrels. in AR15 terms 16.5" was as short as the Stoner DI system would reliably go....the new SCAR has much fewer MRBS (mean rounds between stoppages). As it happens a 16.5" 223 at 100 yards or there about still has decent temporary wood chipping effect on skittles.......go to 10.5", accuracy is the same but significant temp cavitation reduces to about 50 yards.

 

What may become the next level of kool kit is 338 Lapua lipstick based AR10`s. Bushmaster has one as does someone else (forgot who).

 

David.

[Zaitsev]

Quickload (on a quick run up) shows 2585fps with a 139gr bt from the .280 brit with a 20" barrel.

 

thus

 

Range Drop Drop Windage Windage Velocity Mach Energy Time Lead Lead

(yd) (in) (MOA) (in) (MOA) (ft/s) (none) (ft•lbs) (s) (in) (MOA)

0 -1.5 *** 0.0 *** 2591.7 2.384 2072.7 0.000 0.0 ***

100 -0.0 -0.0 0.9 0.9 2366.6 2.177 1728.3 0.121 21.3 20.4

200 -4.7 -2.3 4.0 1.9 2153.0 1.981 1430.4 0.254 44.7 21.3

300 -17.0 -5.4 9.4 3.0 1951.2 1.795 1174.8 0.400 70.5 22.4

400 -38.4 -9.2 17.5 4.2 1759.7 1.619 955.6 0.562 99.0 23.6

500 -71.1 -13.6 28.8 5.5 1577.2 1.451 767.6 0.742 130.7 25.0

600 -117.8 -18.8 43.9 7.0 1403.3 1.291 607.7 0.944 166.2 26.4

700 -182.3 -24.9 63.6 8.7 1239.1 1.140 473.8 1.172 206.2 28.1

800 -269.6 -32.2 88.7 10.6 1089.4 1.002 366.2 1.430 251.7 30.0

900 -386.0 -41.0 119.1 12.6 1006.8 0.926 312.8 1.719 302.5 32.1

1000 -536.7 -51.2 152.5 14.6 959.5 0.883 284.1 2.024 356.3 34.0

 

 

 

 

Ok it misses out on being super at 1000yds but I'm guessing thats not too important for the application.

 

Just a little something else thrown in the mix!

[devilishdave]

Most people fail to grasp it is not all about hitting skittles but I like the way you make your point. For each skittle hit hundreds of rounds are fired to keep skittles heads down. now in order to keep skittles heads down rates of fire become irelavent because if you fire 300 rounds a min or 1000 rounds a min over or in to some ones cover they will tend to stay in said cover. Wheather the rounds are 5.56 or 7.62 said skittles will still keep their heads in cover. so you are better predominantly firing 5.56 because you can carry much more of it. But one thing the skittles realy dont like is the .50HMG and the GMG.

 

Dave