Thread: LSW...the Armys view...

Very slight diversion from the main question,but as you lot seem to know what you are talking about you may have the answer.

This has hopefully changed since I left in 2004,but at that time the actual training and use of LSW or infact any small arm in the Sappers was pretty poor.Totally by the book inflexiable teaching and not enough shooting being the main points then.

I had the great fortune of joining the Corps shooting team as an average shot but with lots of enthusiasm in the beginning.Once there we shot every avaliable weapon at all ranges and in all positions and leant how our point of aim differed from altering the firing stance.I used to shoot low left when kneeling for example.

From actually having fun when shooting and using the weapons in every possible way including auto,my actual ability as a shooter increased tenfold...especially with the LSW which i thought was a poor weapon until I realised it was me rather than the gun being crap.

Could better training make up for poor preformance of some weapons,especially the non-infantry boys and girls.....or shall I post this as a seperate question?

BaldBaBoon - You have it...

Training
Range time
Coaching (by someone who knows how to coach)

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

Its a swine to fire standing, or in any position except prone, because of the balance problem. The weight up front makes it hard to maintain a point of aim, and taking the left hand away from the foregrip to do a magazine change etc throws the whole weight on the right hand, which has to clutch the weapon in a death grip which is tiring in the long run.

The SLR had its weight "up front" and so it was hard to maintain a point of aim for any length of time when standing; hence pokey drill. The answer is to train properly for the standing position, with a coach who knows what they're doing.

If you think the LSW requires a death grip to change magazines, how much fun do you think the SLR was? The answer was to tuck the butt into your armpit.

How easy is it to fire the GPMG from any position other than prone? Or the Bren? Or, for that matter, the Minimi?

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

Its a swine to fire standing, or in any position except prone, because of the balance problem. The weight up front makes it hard to maintain a point of aim, and taking the left hand away from the foregrip to do a magazine change etc throws the whole weight on the right hand, which has to clutch the weapon in a death grip which is tiring in the long run.

The SLR had its weight "up front" and so it was hard to maintain a point of aim for any length of time when standing; hence pokey drill. The answer is to train properly for the standing position, with a coach who knows what they're doing.

If you think the LSW requires a death grip to change magazines, how much fun do you think the SLR was? The answer was to tuck the butt into your armpit.

How easy is it to fire the GPMG from any position other than prone? Or the Bren? Or, for that matter, the Minimi?

I never used the SLR, but I would point out that it had a butt to stick under your armpit. The LSW doesn't. The other point is well taken. Since most of us train mainly with the rifle, the LSW comes as a nasty surprise when we get to use it. Developing Popeye-like arms just to fire that one particular weapon has gone out of fashion.

As I understand it, the other 'true' support weapons are often fired from the hip, or a braced,or prone position. I've rarely seen anyone try and fire in the standing unsupported position.

I find it telling that in almost all the weapon threads on Arrse, I can't find one supporting the LSW. It might be hiding, but is there anyone willing to say it's their favourite weapon?

The LSW is so good that my battalion haven't used it at all for at least 7 years. I haven't seen a LSW since before Telic 1.

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

I never used the Bren or LMG, but some of the old and bold might be able to tell us what the effective range was. i'm pretty sure it was over 600m.

Not a firearms expert by a long chalk but used to be quite good with the BREN/LMG. It was certainly good out to 600m (but not much more), was very controllable and could put down a good weight of very accurate fire in 2 - 3 round bursts in the right hands, so virtually all rounds aimed.

It also was really a marksman's weapon rather than a support weapon and suffered from being magazine fed.

Some have said that it was too accurate, but it was certainly a pleasure to fire

So, the BREN could engage out to 600m with iron sights. The LSW does the same, but requires the SUSAT. If the BREN had had an optical sight, with the heavier round, I expect it would have been effective to 800m?

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

Some have said that it was too accurate, but it was certainly a pleasure to fire

How the fuck can a direct fire weapon be too accurate?

So a civvy asks: Is there a need in Afghanistan for accurate individual fire at greater distance than what the SA80 can reach, and does the LSW fulfil this requirement?

LSW has potential, if it could benefit from the same level of investment in time and money that DMR variant Colts have over the past decade.

That won't happen though and we'll end up with an expensive redesign, sat in the armoury because no matter how good it is it has a bad rep.

Originally Posted by Grapevine

So a civvy asks: Is there a need in Afghanistan for accurate individual fire at greater distance than what the SA80 can reach, and does the LSW fulfil this requirement?

Of course there is a need. Especially now collateral damage by IDF and OS assets is getting pretty much taboo. The LSW is a bag of fucking shit. The GPMG, 50 cal HMG and GMG fulfil the role perfectly though only the GPMG in the light role can be carried on patrol. More than enough firepower out to greater ranges.

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

Some have said that it was too accurate, but it was certainly a pleasure to fire

How the fuck can a direct fire weapon be too accurate?

beaten zone too small for suppresion.

Originally Posted by instinct

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

Some have said that it was too accurate, but it was certainly a pleasure to fire

How the fuck can a direct fire weapon be too accurate?

beaten zone too small for suppresion.

Deja Vuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

Originally Posted by instinct

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

Some have said that it was too accurate, but it was certainly a pleasure to fire

How the fuck can a direct fire weapon be too accurate?

beaten zone too small for suppresion.

Fucking bollocks. If a weapon was too accurate why would you want a beaten zone? You could just pick off individuals every couple of seconds. Stop talking shit. A beaten zone doesn't mean you're going to actually hit anyone which is the aim of firing at people.

EDIT TO ADD: I've spent 20 years trying to get my GPMG gunners to get a tighter group (which i've been pretty successful). Am I to assume that what I should be doing is letting them spray all over the place on the off chance they may hit something with a larger spread?

How does the beaten zone of a Bren/LMG compare with that of the GPMG?

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

I never used the Bren or LMG, but some of the old and bold might be able to tell us what the effective range was. i'm pretty sure it was over 600m.

Not a firearms expert by a long chalk but used to be quite good with the BREN/LMG. It was certainly good out to 600m (but not much more), was very controllable and could put down a good weight of very accurate fire in 2 - 3 round bursts in the right hands, so virtually all rounds aimed.

It also was really a marksman's weapon rather than a support weapon and suffered from being magazine fed.

Some have said that it was too accurate, but it was certainly a pleasure to fire

So, the BREN could engage out to 600m with iron sights. The LSW does the same, but requires the SUSAT. If the BREN had had an optical sight, with the heavier round, I expect it would have been effective to 800m?

Sidney Jarry was of the opinion that a 1944-45 NW Europe Rifle platoon could deliver harassing and suppressive fire to 1,000 yards. This was in a 1990's article in BAR comparing capablities between a 1944-45 and 1990's Rifle Battalion. He mentioned a task in Holland where he was ordered to man a defence position on a dike. His task was to keep German's forces in their curent position, about 1,00 yards away. He required no supporting arms to assist him.