Best weapons / optimum calibres

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
#1
As so many threads seem to end up discussing this, it seemed sensible to give it 'sticky status'. So all you gun nuts, snipers and spotters now have your own dedicated playground.

Discussion needn't be limited to individual weapons - the ideal fire team/section mix, along with the best mix of weapon sights/STA eqpt is a subject worth exploring. My own submission for the best fire team mix would be:

Rifleman - a forward ejecting bullpup weapon in 6-7mm, with picatinny top and handguard rails (cruciform). Equipped with a 4x day sight w/CQB red dot sight and an II night sight (possibly 'in line').

Grenadier - as above, with a 40mm UGL on picatinny attachment, quadrant red dot sight and LRF.

Comd - as rifleman, but TI sight for improved situational awareness (lux dependant).

Sharpshooter - as rifleman, but longer barrel and lightweight bipod.

All weapons to be capable of fitting a bayonet.
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
#2
Napier are you a 'Bugle' / FAMAS fan then?
Not especially - I was thinking more along FN 2000/Tavor lines. I am a big fan of the SA80, accepting its right hand firing limitations and piecemeal development, although I accept the increased calibre argument. We all know that the replacement weapons for the current mix will be procured 'offshore', and in the next 10-15 years - so something similar to what we will buy is probably in development/production somewhere. I would see a solution being modular (to a degree) and with a high commonality of parts.
 
#5
FN SCAR-L / Mk.16
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#6
OOOOOOOOh, at last, now I cant fecking think of what to right about apart from agreeing that offshore will be possibly both design and procurement. I suspect that we will either buy into a NATO wide system which with Natos new members possibly not wanting that sort of new spend will mean an even longer procurement than if we went down the Euro road.
I would like to see the 6 to 7mm bullets get a full trial of different case configurations to get the most from the latest powder developments. There is no reason that we cant have a round that will do the same work as 7.62 Nato in the GPMG format with slightly less weight.
I would consider that the Taden could be looked at again and with modern materials we should be able to keep the weight reasonably low.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#8
Mr_Deputy said:
Taden?

Is there any point now the GPMG is so well established?
It basically ensured that the .280 was also used in the GPMG role which if we are going to arm our troops with a heavier round needs to be fired from all section weapons.
 
#10
Picatinny_Rail said:
Ahhh a thread to watch closely me thinks ....... ready to jump in when a really bone idea pops up!!!!!!!


I don't think you will have to wait long! my contribution is that any new rifle should be able to be fired from either shoulder
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#11
EX_STAB said:
What about the merits of a medium machine gun in 338 Lap magnum?
Thats probably more forward thinking than sticking with .5, also means surplus brass on the market! :roll:
 
#12
The real concept that needs to be taken onboard (IMHO) is that of the toolbox weapons.
Being able to mix and match weapons, calibres and sights depending on the job.
An optimal calibre or brl length or sight or recoil system is all well and good, but is always built around an ideal environment (most notably the standard battlefield mission).
But being able to have a carbine version of a rifle with a reflex sight is ideal in a CQB environment. A long brl with support and magnified optics for open warfare, in line night capability for when light conditions vary etc...

These generic debates on what is weapon or calibre is better will always depend on specific examples of how and when and who against, it is used.

I think we should be looking at standardising concepts, not calibres. So all the lower receivers are laid out the same (Even if made by different companies), so the safety's and selectors are in the same place and work the same way. (Like the pedals on cars).
OK, things like bolt actions will always need to be unique, but there is no reason why new assault rifles cannot all have a lever safety/selector, with the safe in the same place in relation to the other modes!!!

Just think of the ease on training. An operator can pick up a carbine, SMG, rifle, long range rifle, no matter who makes them, and know how they work with no extra training.

Taking this a stage further, it would be ideal to be able to change upper receivers "toolbox" style in order to meet differing environments (heavier brls or shorter brls etc...)

Just some ideas, but hopefully something a little more "out of the box" than just "this calibre is better than that calibre" debate.

rgds

PR
 
#13
Picatinny_Rail said:
The real concept that needs to be taken onboard (IMHO) is that of the toolbox weapons.
Being able to mix and match weapons, calibres and sights depending on the job.
An optimal calibre or brl length or sight or recoil system is all well and good, but is always built around an ideal environment (most notably the standard battlefield mission).
But being able to have a carbine version of a rifle with a reflex sight is ideal in a CQB environment. A long brl with support and magnified optics for open warfare, in line night capability for when light conditions vary etc...

These generic debates on what is weapon or calibre is better will always depend on specific examples of how and when and who against, it is used.

I think we should be looking at standardising concepts, not calibres. So all the lower receivers are laid out the same (Even if made by different companies), so the safety's and selectors are in the same place and work the same way. (Like the pedals on cars).
OK, things like bolt actions will always need to be unique, but there is no reason why new assault rifles cannot all have a lever safety/selector, with the safe in the same place in relation to the other modes!!!

Just think of the ease on training. An operator can pick up a carbine, SMG, rifle, long range rifle, no matter who makes them, and know how they work with no extra training.

Taking this a stage further, it would be ideal to be able to change upper receivers "toolbox" style in order to meet differing environments (heavier brls or shorter brls etc...)

Just some ideas, but hopefully something a little more "out of the box" than just "this calibre is better than that calibre" debate.

rgds

PR
That would be the FN SCAR then?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#14
PR, a nice idea but I dont feel there is much need for common lowers, most troops should be competent with platoon weapons. The principle behind having changeable barrel lengths seems great till the battle changes and the enemy sits out beyond 300 yards and blasts you and your team armed with fibua carbines in the little house you are now pinned down in.
Bull pup designs ensured we get carbine overall lengths without sacrificing full length barrels. I think a bull pup is still the way to go, ambidextrous yes, adapatble for easy on off of sights and grenade launchers yes, this then leaves us deciding upon a calibre.
The calibre has to be man enough for the job. Had we used .280/7mm ammo as standard would we have gone down the 5.56mm route with a standard Nato? Who knows.
I know that Nato didnt have the clout to ignore the yanks over .30 ammo.
If units had been able to deploy to Korea with the L9 rifle in its automatic version then perhaps the Yanks may have seen how good it was?
Maybe we would have seen how many problems exist with bullpups and the SA80 wouldnt have been such a balls up!
 
#15
EX_STAB said:
Picatinny_Rail said:
The real concept that needs to be taken onboard (IMHO) is that of the toolbox weapons.
PR
That would be the FN SCAR then?
Sort of.. But my point was more about a joined up method of being able to buy and use suitable weapons from where ever, and be familiar with them. The SCAR is modular, and not all of its modules are the best on the market. There will always be sacrifice in a fully modular system where you trade off functionality for modularity. However, I think it is a bold first step by a company to try and tackle these issues we all discuss.. :D
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#16
I still think the Iron Duke was right, an ounce of round ball is needed for the Frenchman!
 
#17
Personally, I'm still waiting for that often talked of belt-fed wombat, but only so I know what to expect should I ever come across a lady who fcuks like one... :roll:
 
#18
Picatinny_Rail said:
EX_STAB said:
Picatinny_Rail said:
The real concept that needs to be taken onboard (IMHO) is that of the toolbox weapons.
PR
That would be the FN SCAR then?
Sort of.. But my point was more about a joined up method of being able to buy and use suitable weapons from where ever, and be familiar with them. The SCAR is modular, and not all of its modules are the best on the market. There will always be sacrifice in a fully modular system where you trade off functionality for modularity. However, I think it is a bold first step by a company to try and tackle these issues we all discuss.. :D
I think there's a lot to be said for having the controls in a similar layout and for the sights to be interchangeable to some degree but I don't see it needs to go further than that.
 
#19
ugly said:
PR, a nice idea but I dont feel there is much need for common lowers, most troops should be competent with platoon weapons. The principle behind having changeable barrel lengths seems great till the battle changes and the enemy sits out beyond 300 yards and blasts you and your team armed with fibua carbines in the little house you are now pinned down in.
Bull pup designs ensured we get carbine overall lengths without sacrificing full length barrels. I think a bull pup is still the way to go, ambidextrous yes, adapatble for easy on off of sights and grenade launchers yes, this then leaves us deciding upon a calibre.
The calibre has to be man enough for the job. Had we used .280/7mm ammo as standard would we have gone down the 5.56mm route with a standard Nato? Who knows.
I know that Nato didnt have the clout to ignore the yanks over .30 ammo.
If units had been able to deploy to Korea with the L9 rifle in its automatic version then perhaps the Yanks may have seen how good it was?
Maybe we would have seen how many problems exist with bullpups and the SA80 wouldnt have been such a balls up!
Your right, but that was not the point I was trying to make. My fault for not being articulate enough :p
I am not on about having the ability to change brls etc on ops. I'm looking at it from a big hand perspective. If we deploy troops to an urban area, where EHC is going to be the order of the day, equip the lads with short brl, reflex sighted, carbines. If we are going to fight in the green zone or in deserts, a longer brl, with a longer optical reach, maybe even a bigger calibre.
But the calibre being big enough to do the job is only relevant to the job!
EHC, against a target 5m away, a 5.56mmx45 fired from a C8 carbine will make a mess of anybody it hits.
Same round fired from a long brl C8 at 300m might not be up to the job.

That's why the debate about what round or weapon is best goes nowhere unless it is measured against specific requirements.
 
#20
Ooooh! FN SCAR.

gun porn linky

Very tasty, not like that gay French thing (nicked out of the Fifth Element filum?)

However, the very last line says that they're not configured for bayonets and never will be.

Blasphemy! Hang them! Gibber, mumble....

Still prefer the way 7.62 turns cover into concealment though....
Not having used any of the exotic 'modern' calibres, I'd welcome a proper review of the options available rather than rely on NATO/USA/flavour of the decade.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top