Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Composite barrel upgrade for SA80 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

paddyo

Swinger
Having never shot a gun in my life myself, I still take an interest in what our dangerous people have to work with and would like to know folks thought on the L85A3 being shot out to 300yrs/300m range over sustained periods in dry ambient weather conditions (although most active theatre seems to be in hotter climates of recent).

Upgrade suggestions I've read to adopt the 7.62 cartridge to engage at a greater distance, and with more lethality, ironically get shot down on grounds of quantity of ammo that can be carried and recoil fatigue. As the SA80 is capable of reaching out to 1000yrds/m is that really an issue, and is standard issue body armour of current tier enemies we are engaged with able to block 5.56 ?

Reading up on composite barrels, designed to rapidly remove heat from the inner barrel to the exterior, thus keeping the barrel from bending so that target groups remain consistent after dozens of rounds, would this be a suitable and realistic upgrade for the SA80 from a "squaddies" perspective ?
 

People who admit to never having shot a gun in their lives should explain to those of us who have, how a firearm firing SS109 which is not sighted for anywhere near 1000m could "reach out to" that distance.

And by what magic a composite barrel using current composite technology could sustain the kind of rates of fire required with SS109 without carbonising, catching fire or delaminating.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
To the OP, the problem in recent conflicts hasn’t as much been the inability to hit the enemy at 1000 yards but being unable to see them at the distance from which they are being engaged and suppressed by that enemy!
Mr Bane previous threads apply
 

CC_TA

LE
We're only just starting to sort the shite A3 handguard issues.

As soon as the yanks decide what ammo they, and we and NATO, will be using a composite barrel won't be an issue for an upgrade to the A3.

I foresee the infantry getting the 'new' rifle first and the rest keeping hold of the A3 until there are enough in the system to go round.

I'm also sure it will all go smoothly and not be a gargantuan clusterfuck.
0.png
 
Last edited:
We're only just starting to sort the shite A3 handguard issues.I'm also sure it will all go smoothly and not be a gargantuan clusterfuck.

blast Your eyes Sirrah!

the A3 is the latest in turd brown coloured perfection!
 
We're only just starting to sort the shite A3 handguard issues.

As soon as the yanks decide what ammo they, and we and NATO, will be using a composite barrel won't be an issue for an upgrade to the A3.

I foresee the infantry getting the 'new' rifle first and the rest keeping hold of the A3 until there are enough in the system to go round.

I'm also sure it will all go smoothly and not be a gargantuan clusterfuck.

The number of A3 conversions is small anyway - most personnel will likely never lay a finger on one before replacement*


(*if the 2025 end of service life is actually adhered to and they don't decide to just hang some more stupid shit on the thing and repaint it a different colour again, and pay HK or someone over the odds for new replacement small parts - remember that the youngest receiver came off the production line in the mid-90's and they've been putting lipstick on the original receivers since. In 2025, the oldest receivers in service will be over 40 years old, the youngest around 30... Apparently they're cannibalising some of the A2's for parts at this stage and have been for a while to drag the system kicking and screaming up to 2025... But it's "world-beating", lol...)
 
Having never shot a gun in my life myself, I still take an interest in what our dangerous people have to work with and would like to know folks thought on the L85A3 being shot out to 300yrs/300m range over sustained periods in dry ambient weather conditions (although most active theatre seems to be in hotter climates of recent).

Upgrade suggestions I've read to adopt the 7.62 cartridge to engage at a greater distance, and with more lethality, ironically get shot down on grounds of quantity of ammo that can be carried and recoil fatigue. As the SA80 is capable of reaching out to 1000yrds/m is that really an issue, and is standard issue body armour of current tier enemies we are engaged with able to block 5.56 ?

Reading up on composite barrels, designed to rapidly remove heat from the inner barrel to the exterior, thus keeping the barrel from bending so that target groups remain consistent after dozens of rounds, would this be a suitable and realistic upgrade for the SA80 from a "squaddies" perspective ?

I can use my son's nerf gun and accurately hit something at around 5 to 10 metres on a good day. The nerf gun itself can probably "reach out to" 20 to 30 metres. You get the point?

In the US ideas were put forward for the use of .300 Blackout and also for the use of a .260 calibre round. Blackout was pretty heavily trialled, and may in fact be in use with some of the less publicity hungry units, judging by the amount of .300 Blackout once fired brass that has popped up for sale, and continues to surface regularly.

Have a look at the specs for .300 Blackout and it may give you some indications as to coming trends in munitions design. As to composite barrels, well they tend to be found in rifles made for carefully considered accurate single shot placement and not for weapons used by the infantry.


 
The next question is that the proposed end of life is about 5 years away. Are they actually going to do trials (at which point they'd better start moving on it, lol), or are they just going to cut everything out by going with Colt Canada C8 rifles cos a) they've been in the system for ages anyway (and have an L-number), b) they're currently giving them to the Parachute Regiment and Marines anyway, so it would be a fairly simple measure to expand that to the rest of the army without a proper tender process. Being outside the EU will also help with that.

Such a thing could even be spun not as a replacement at all, but an expansion of an already existing specialist programme to the entire army.
 
I can use my son's nerf gun and accurately hit something at around 5 to 10 metres on a good day. The nerf gun itself can probably "reach out to" 20 to 30 metres. You get the point?

In the US ideas were put forward for the use of .300 Blackout and also for the use of a .260 calibre round. Blackout was pretty heavily trialled, and may in fact be in use with some of the less publicity hungry units, judging by the amount of .300 Blackout once fired brass that has popped up for sale, and continues to surface regularly.

Have a look at the specs for .300 Blackout and it may give you some indications as to coming trends in munitions design. As to composite barrels, well they tend to be found in rifles made for carefully considered accurate single shot placement and not for weapons used by the infantry.



300 BLK as anything other than a short-range round for specialist use is pointless. As a general issue round it's way behind the curve, even in supersonic form with light bullets.
 
People who admit to never having shot a gun in their lives should explain to those of us who have, how a firearm firing SS109 which is not sighted for anywhere near 1000m could "reach out to" that distance.

And by what magic a composite barrel using current composite technology could sustain the kind of rates of fire required with SS109 without carbonising, catching fire or delaminating.

Just because you cant 'reach out' that far! I remember shooting 1000 meters with iron sights, unsupported..... I just dont know where the shot went.
 
Just because you cant 'reach out' that far! I remember shooting 1000 meters with iron sights, unsupported..... I just dont know where the shot went.
With THAT rifle, anything is possible.....
 
The next question is that the proposed end of life is about 5 years away. Are they actually going to do trials (at which point they'd better start moving on it, lol), or are they just going to cut everything out by going with Colt Canada C8 rifles cos a) they've been in the system for ages anyway (and have an L-number), b) they're currently giving them to the Parachute Regiment and Marines anyway, so it would be a fairly simple measure to expand that to the rest of the army without a proper tender process. Being outside the EU will also help with that.

Such a thing could even be spun not as a replacement at all, but an expansion of an already existing specialist programme to the entire army.

C8 ? Why not the C7 ?
 
Just because you cant 'reach out' that far! I remember shooting 1000 meters with iron sights, unsupported..... I just dont know where the shot went.

I have a competition record at 1000 yds and I know where the shots went ;)

Wasn't 62gn NATO ball in a military rifle though...
 
C8 ? Why not the C7 ?

Cos shorter is more fashionable ;) I haven't found an L number for the C7, and apparently the pathfinders have also transitioned to C8 after their C7's wore out. And apparently C8's is what the Paras and Marines are getting. So I suspect C7's would be seen as a retrograde step.
 

nsstab

Clanker
The concept of the weapon or ammunition being the weak link in maintaining accuracy over time is laughable. It's all about the fleshbag holding the thing.
 
blast Your eyes Sirrah!

the A3 is the latest in turd brown coloured perfection!
How the flying **** would you know? You’ve never picked up a rifle in your life, let alone used one on ops.
 

9.414

Old-Salt
Shooting at 600m with iron sights was straight forward with the SLR, and the range allowed the spotting of "swirl" which allowed the SASC types to get all excited ;)

nsstab is perfectly correct that it depends on the firer. As there was no "tactical" purpose for doing it then it was not normally taught. I used to get soldiers to fire their weapon at that range to give them confidence and to learn about application of fire. 10 rounds was more than enough to show how you could put rounds in the right area. Closing down to 300m after that was easy peasy.
 
The concept of the weapon or ammunition being the weak link in maintaining accuracy over time is laughable. It's all about the fleshbag holding the thing.

100% agreement. But actually teaching basic rifle marksmanship to a high level hasn't been sexy since about 1914...

Much better (and more profitable) to sell shiny new gizzits and make claims about shiny new expensive combat shooting training...

(it's not just the military though - it's exactly the same mindset on the practical rifle circuit. And the guys who do well are the ones who train the basics up to a high standard and build on that, rather than try to short-circuit the un-sexy part.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top