Army Rumour Service

Theres a need for a 7.62 bolt action, but with snipers, not markman.( the .338 weighs as much as a GPMG, bit difficult to stalk with!) Too slow, un-wieldy,. Besides, AI are not building any more L96's, theres no spare parts beyond whats on inventory at the moment, and just not enough L96's to go around at section level.
The beauty of the LSW conversion is we have shed loads of them, the longer barrel will allow precision shots out to say 600 ( with appropriate sight), it looks like an A2 when its got its rail system on. The balance is changed when this is in place, the rail and bipod are lighter than the old systen and so much better, and no re-training to a different weapon system . Its a no-brainer, as our U.S cousins say, when it comes to a cost-effective solution. Yes, there are probably better off-the-shelf solutions out there, but the LSW conversions make a lot of sense, if we buy into the idea that infantry sections need a weapon system with a bit of a longer reach ( the mid ground between the A2 armes section and snipers) for the best shot in that section.

....and everyone missed my original point....95% reliable...wtf is that supposed to mean..and should the military really be making statements like that when they are attacked daily on the shortcommings of the equipment issued?

Theres a need for a 7.62 bolt action, but with snipers, not markman.( the .338 weighs as much as a GPMG, bit difficult to stalk with!) Too slow, un-wieldy,. Besides, AI are not building any more L96's, theres no spare parts beyond whats on inventory at the moment, and just not enough L96's to go around at section level.
The beauty of the LSW conversion is we have shed loads of them, the longer barrel will allow precision shots out to say 600 ( with appropriate sight), it looks like an A2 when its got its rail system on. The balance is changed when this is in place, the rail and bipod are lighter than the old systen and so much better, and no re-training to a different weapon system . Its a no-brainer, as our U.S cousins say, when it comes to a cost-effective solution. Yes, there are probably better off-the-shelf solutions out there, but the LSW conversions make a lot of sense, if we buy into the idea that infantry sections need a weapon system with a bit of a longer reach ( the mid ground between the A2 armes section and snipers) for the best shot in that section.

I can hit a fig 11 reliably with my No.4 @600yds so that's no great shakes. I'll come back to this with some data.

More magnification on a sight allows you to discern your target and observe fall of shot better (given a suitable clarity of optic) but it doesn't make for more accurate shooting.I do wonder if some of the problem with the LSW is that the noise to weight ratio isn't high enough.

Agreed, when the SUIT sight first became availalble/general issue, our Bisley shots preached that magnification 'could make a good shot better and a bad shot worse', my point is that the LSW on s/s is capable of good accuracy at longer ranges than we currently train for and a good shot with a better sight, could enhance the effective range.

That's pretty good shooting by current standards, especially with an iron sight. Were you using the aperture on the bog standard No.4 leaf sight or one of those precision things? I also think that most shooters take a bit mor care when using bolt action as you've proved.

( the .338 weighs as much as a GPMG, bit difficult to stalk with!)

Indeed, the first time they came into the workshop for me to inspect I felt sorry for the buggers who had to carry them. The L96 by comparison is a very lightweight weapon and I would have personally thought it would be the much more sensible option over the LSW. Spares of course are going to be an issue, I only recently started getting the damn minimi bolts through once again.

Which bit of that's wrong? It does have a longer, heavier barrel, it is more accurate than the IW, it is very accurate on the bipod and as it works in exactly the same way as the IW it is reliable. It is stiff competition at its role, however...its role isn't and never should have been fire support. The L110A1 is far and away a better LMG; the LSW is a good designated marksman's rifle but a very poor support weapon. And thankfully that was realised a while ago.

Edited to add: as for 95% reliable, see TBBT's post here.

. . .It's do-able if marksmanship was encouraged more than it is.

Funnily enough, both BAR and Bren fired from an open bolt.

And if our Transatlantic cousins never developed an M16-based LSW, what is this?
www.coltcanada.com/lsw-page.htm
world.guns.ru/machine/mg68-e.htm

What would the scale of issue be per platoon? One 'LSW marksman' per section or something like that?

Funny old thing: Unca Sam's Army (where they know a thing or two about firearms) has never even toyed with the notion of turning the M16 into a squad full-auto weapon.

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children are looking at replacing Minimis with the "Infantry Automatic Rifle" in their rifle squads - i.e. going from belt-fed to magazine-fed. One justification appears that the M249 is too heavy and unwieldy once you get into close quarters.

Funnily enough, both BAR and Bren fired from an open bolt.

And if our Transatlantic cousins never developed an M16-based LSW, what is this?
www.coltcanada.com/lsw-page.htm
world.guns.ru/machine/mg68-e.htm

Exactly the reason why Para Regt never binned the GPMG out of the sections like the rest of the infantry battalions did.