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

Originally Posted by prince_jammy

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

Originally Posted by prince_jammy

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

The best thing to do with the LSWs would be to sell them to civvy shooters and give them Section 5 Authority to hold them for target shooting.

The next generation upgrade for the Infantry weapon would be available for zero development cost! :D


Otherwise, remove the fore-end. Remove the bipod from the fore-end.

Fit the Picatinny fore_end. Rework the bipod to fit the picatinny fore-end.

Fit a x6 optical sight (The X6 ACOG with miniature Red Dot would be ideal)

Fit the Vortex flash eliminator arranged to take a bayonet.

Optional - fit a laser Range finder to the fore-end.

I pretty much had the same idea myself about turning it back into 'a rifle', especially re the optical sight.

LSW is an accurate weapon on s/s and pinging fig 11's out to 800m+ with a better sight than x4 shouldn't be a problem.
The Toms will soon get used to carrying it as a rifle although the point of balance is shite

Accurate by SA80 standards or truly accurate?

For sure, the LSW will never be a sniper rifle, but it's accurate enough for most of the 'good shots' in a rifle platoon. Most of our Bods are expected to hit a fig 11 at 600m with it.

As for the SA80 accuracy?...i know fellas who were 'average to poor' with the SLR but were wearing crossed rifles after firing the same APWT once we converted to SA80. Even hitting tgts at 500m and beyond with a rifle aint exactly hard.

I think that both weapons are caple of very good accuracy but the sights do need to be x6 on the LSW in order to reach out and 'share the love'.

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.

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

Gravelbelly - you're quite right about devolving this sort of capability. I can - and with my tongue only partly in my cheek - recommend the "Hammers Slammers" books by David Drake as a good place to start writing the URD.

Even as an avid sci-fi geek, I have avoided David Drake so far - no real reason; it just seemed too pulpy, and one book by John Ringo was too many. How about Jerry Pournelle (dodgy politics aside)?

I'll see your Hammer and raise you Charles Stross' "Halting State" as a much better look at how technology might impact processes and systems.

Anyway, my aim would be simple - to reduce the time on target of a fire mission to close on that of a target within a silent fire plan; by reducing where possible those individual tasks which can be eased by the use of simple technology, and by data transmission instead of voice.

I see where you're going with Drake, but I like him anyway, especially the Slammers stuff. His description of comms, helmet mounted sights, automatic cueing, look at the terrain and get a grid that the arty gets automatically and so is what he would have liked to have in Vietnam. You could try the volumes online at the Baen Free Library for a cost-free assessment.

Oh, and I have to admit that John Ringo is a guilty pleasure. Well, more the literary equivalent of a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but you can't help it. Just read Ghost and the sequels. (If you dare.) Hell, at one point in the Aldenata series I became convinced he was using satire to criticise the American way of war he ostensibly glamorises - that is, you have to invent an alien race of unstoppable killing machines to find an enemy it works against.

And good call on Stross, I read Halting State only last weekend.

....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?

I was also under the impression the L96 was getting dragged back to the units to take over the marksman role.

Originally Posted by vampireuk

I was also under the impression the L96 was getting dragged back to the units to take over the marksman role.

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.

Originally Posted by para-dox

Originally Posted by vampireuk

I was also under the impression the L96 was getting dragged back to the units to take over the marksman role.

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.

They should have the TMHs fitted properly too so they don't rattle.

Originally Posted by 2/51

....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?

The short answer - it's not "pull trigger 100 times, hear a bang 95 times", it's "pull trigger 20,000 times, get two stoppages".

It means that they created a definitive test for small-arms; the "battlefield mission". The full description is here, but in short it's 960rds in 36min for the LSW, 150rds in 8.5minutes for the rifle. You get a serious stoppage (i.e. not cleared immediately by an IA) - fail mission. More than one stoppage of any type - fail mission.

They ran a confidence trial of the new operational cleaning in the Omani desert, in a realistic setting: e.g. "Two Chinook helicopters flying, on each landing Royal Marines deploy and took up firing positions, then helicopters take off, land again, and Royal Marines re-embark – seven times (five with extreme brown-out conditions). Returned to range, lay weapons directly on the sand, left there for an hour in the hottest part of the day – up to 52 degrees Centigrade. Then straight to firing point, dustbowl with constant 20-knot wind
Battlefield mission test repeated with all 36: 5,400 rounds fired".

So: 95% reliability means that if you fired 20 Battlefield Missions (nearly 20,000 rounds), you'd fail in one of them.

By the way - the SA80A2 was 95% reliable in that desert trial; the M16 was 47% reliable (IIRC, it even got beaten by properly-cleaned SA80A1).

It's also worth noting that AIUI the Israelis ditched the FN FAL (basically, an SLR without all of those sand cutouts in the bolt carrier) because they thought it "wasn't reliable enough in the desert", and switched to... the M16.

Originally Posted by para-dox

Originally Posted by vampireuk

I was also under the impression the L96 was getting dragged back to the units to take over the marksman role.

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.

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

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

Originally Posted by prince_jammy

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

Originally Posted by prince_jammy

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

The best thing to do with the LSWs would be to sell them to civvy shooters and give them Section 5 Authority to hold them for target shooting.

The next generation upgrade for the Infantry weapon would be available for zero development cost! :D


Otherwise, remove the fore-end. Remove the bipod from the fore-end.

Fit the Picatinny fore_end. Rework the bipod to fit the picatinny fore-end.

Fit a x6 optical sight (The X6 ACOG with miniature Red Dot would be ideal)

Fit the Vortex flash eliminator arranged to take a bayonet.

Optional - fit a laser Range finder to the fore-end.

I pretty much had the same idea myself about turning it back into 'a rifle', especially re the optical sight.

LSW is an accurate weapon on s/s and pinging fig 11's out to 800m+ with a better sight than x4 shouldn't be a problem.
The Toms will soon get used to carrying it as a rifle although the point of balance is shite

Accurate by SA80 standards or truly accurate?

For sure, the LSW will never be a sniper rifle, but it's accurate enough for most of the 'good shots' in a rifle platoon. Most of our Bods are expected to hit a fig 11 at 600m with it.

As for the SA80 accuracy?...i know fellas who were 'average to poor' with the SLR but were wearing crossed rifles after firing the same APWT once we converted to SA80. Even hitting tgts at 500m and beyond with a rifle aint exactly hard.

I think that both weapons are caple of very good accuracy but the sights do need to be x6 on the LSW in order to reach out and 'share the love'.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by incendiarycutlery

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.

Originally Posted by prince_jammy

Originally Posted by incendiarycutlery

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.

As I understand it, the big problem in Afghanistan is seeing the enemy. If you cannot see the enemy it does not matter how “accurate� you are. Better optics give you a better chance of seeing the enemy and hence aiming at him.

Originally Posted by prince_jammy

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

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.

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.

I don't think current standards are very demanding though are they?

As an experiment I once helda shoot on X range at Sennybridge. There is a fig 11 at about 1000 yds (900m)

Using a standard Lee-Enfield No.4 and with a friend spotting for me with ordinary binoculars I shot at it slowfire from the prone unsupported position (i.e. Off my elbows.)

As I recall it took 17 rounds before I knocked it down, all rounds hitting within 2m of it, most within a metre or so. I would consider that to be "Effective Fire".

Now if you extrapolate that to a section that is three rounds per man and you've nailed it. It's do-able if marksmanship was encouraged more than it is. I've just completed TSC(A) (less the Infantry package) and the marksmanship element comprised 20 shots on an electronic range simulating grouping at 25m. No live rounds were fired at all.

I teach civvy shooters. They do a day theory and dry practice before heading to the range. We start them at 300yds with a bolt action rifle and Iron sights, they can all nail a fig 11 from hte start. With a bipod and scope they hit fig 11 at 600yds on day one. It's down to teaching.

Originally Posted by para-dox

( 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.

Originally Posted by vampireuk

Originally Posted by para-dox

( 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.

The L96 itself is heavier than it needs to be. I have a TRG22 which is in the same class yet is 3lbs lighter (from memory)

Originally Posted by Bravo_Zulu

Originally Posted by 2/51

"SA80 A2 LSW has a heavier and longer barrel allowing greater muzzle velocity and accuracy than the standard SA80.

When fired from the integrated bipod and using the standard SUSAT sight, LSW is accurate and consistent. It is 95% reliable, better than any of its competitiors."

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.

If the silly arrses who commissioned the LSW had had the sense to read up on the Bren and the BAR (closed-bolt, mag-fed. light weight squad automatic weapons, bith massively inferior to slightly heavier open-bolt belt-fed weapons of similar calibre), the LSW would never have gone to trials, let alone seen service.

The long, long catalogue of fixes that the designers had to apply to try and circumvent the laws of physics and deliver a nonsense spec is well worth reaearching.

Faced with the prospect of real war (GW1, GW2, AFG) it has been found wanting over and over.

Minimi at squad-level - which was being advocated 20 yrs ago by those who understood - represents a simple triumph of common sense infantry practicality, over cabbage-head gravel-belly Bisley-bollox.

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.

As for designated marksman - more bollox. Teach them all to shoot straight.

The procurement staff of my generation should be deeply, deeply ashamed,