Most troops are not trained to that level of shooting skills to need such a high performance barrel.
I was most impressed with the reduction in blowback when he finally spoke on the matter of the suppressor, everything else has been done before for the consumer market, but yes it’s a nice walled garden integrated package, and the US doesn’t mind laying down the money.US Army looking at this as a complete system quite an interesting demo, speaks about parts being interchangeable and calibre changes on the support weapons.
Finally, I no longer have to wait thirty minutes to post.Most troops are not trained to that level of shooting skills to need such a high performance barrel.
By receiver, do you mean body(top half) or TMH. Fairly sure HK have manufactured new bodies both for complete A3 rifles and also as replacements for broken A2 bodies.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...)
Finally, I no longer have to wait thirty minutes to post.
My view is along the lines of the new F35 and what the flight system can do with the pilots, rather than the Russian platform, which would be the other way round i.e. demanding an experienced pilot to pull off impressive manoeuvres.
All firearm tech is designed to air the shooter, and if the barrel itself can remain cooler for longer, then the shooter can keep shooting as he did when he first began, to me that makes a huge difference when I read that entry qualifications for the Army are considered to being lowered ?
Accuracy has never been a problem for L85s. Another new barrel is not what's needed.There is a lot of talk about avoiding an A4 upgrade, or switching to a Colt Canada C7/8, but I am referring to the A2/3 in use today and swapping out its barrel for a composite that can hit as reliably on round two hundred as it did on its first when the barrel was cold, what kind of real world difference would that make today ?
I see. If not then what of heat dissipation, is the hand guard still likely too hot to the naked hand to hold ?Accuracy has never been a problem for L85s. Another new barrel is not what's needed.
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.
I believe the top rifle of the three in the above picture of the MRR series is in 300 Blackout with a 21.6 cm barrel. My opinion is that as you said it's for specialist applications with short barrel lengths and suppressed operation. For normal infantry use it would be a retrograde step from 5.56mm in that the lower velocity would give a more arced trajectory, which goes against one of the reasons for adopting 5.56mm to begin with.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.
I take your point, I seem to have confused the L86 number with the SA80's L85s, apologies. None the less, it matters not as I am looking for feedback on accuracy for the designed range.
I see. If not then what of heat dissipation, is the hand guard still likely too hot to the naked hand to hold ?
I read up on the history of the C series "Canadian" (Diemaco) Colt owned firearm company now. H.M. Government may be strategically waiting until 2025 because they cannot legally do business with any company having filed for bankruptcy (c2015) within a ten year period, and hear glowing reviews of the C7 A1/A2, so no loss if infantry don't get the C8.
Also having read up on the .300 AAC "Blackout" cartridge, basically fitting a .762 bullet into a .556 cartridge (which slips neatly into current NATO magazines) for increased ballistics, and backward compatibility with the minimum of retrofitting fuss. Reputed to shoot well at short to medium (~700m) ranges, I can see economics driving this cartridge more than anything else right now as NATO members (if they don't jump ship to the "EU Army") begrudge even forking out 2% of GDP to remain in the club.
The C7/8 Colt produced riffle (if made by original Diemaco gunsmiths and engineers), with the 300 blackout, is likely a strong contender.
End of life keeps getting dragged out and extended. Trials for new systems are happening all the time.
I did upgrades on the A1, saw the A2 come in and now get to mess about with the A3 - I'm hoping there isn't an A4 coming.
C8s are on their way out and there are probably more AR15 spares on the shelves than C8.
That certainly makes sense, once the fundamentals of any skill are in muscle memory and continue to be practised then the rest can fall in place and adapt to circumstances or new kit. When I was still shooting a lot I could really tell if I had a few weeks off doing other stuff, these days I suspect I'd struggle to hit a barn door reliably.
There is merit to the phrase practise makes perfect.
From your extensive study of the many service rifles you've handled and fired (with the exception of the real one offs and specialist sniper kit) what is the realistic maximum range at which you can reliably engage a man sized target with any assurance of a hit and what do you regard as a real world range at which they're typically used? I've seen a variety of opinions on this. For that matter in the era of smokeless powder has it changed much?
And that finishes the thread!With 5.56mm Ball, if he's standing up and visible, 400m is kinda the max. If the training is there to back it up. I suspect that there is wisdom in the British doctrine of individual fire up to 300m and section fire up to 600m (if I'm remembering those 2 ranges correctly).
At risk of blowing my own trumpet, about a month ago I shot a practical match where there were reactive torso targets out to 400m. I was nailing them with a stock M16A1 with iron sights. Not one hit per round, but causing amazement amongst the scoped shooters. Came 5th of 20-ish despite shooting a really basic rifle and not having shot that kind of match before (2 Brutality matches in the previous year aren't really the same thing at all).
OK, I've never been on a 2-way range, but extrapolating from my one-way-range experience the big points are:
1. You have to be able to see it to hit it (which is why scopes are a value add). Not sure you're going to be seeing much over 400m in practice for a point target.
2. If you can see it, you need to have the basic marksmanship to the level where you can hit it. Under ideal conditions. With nothing moving.
3. If you couldn't hit it reliably under ideal conditions, you can't hit it reliably under stress, in an awkward firing position, strewn with kit, breathing out your ringpiece and being shot at. And the target not wanting to be hit....
4. Your rifle and ammo have to be capable of hitting it if you do your part.
1 is taken for granted these days.
2 is the big sticking point (see lots of shooting-oriented training officers on here bemoaning the difficulties here).
3 apparently PDT tries to short-circuit the deficiencies in 2 without actually doing much of the unsexy stuff.
4 M16A1 is more than adequately accurate for this out to 400m, particularly given 2 is normally quite deficient. Contrary to popular belief the L85 series isn't extraordinarily accurate compared to other similar rifles, but is more than adequate for what it needs to do. Given this, there is zero value add in an upgraded barrel, particularly if the money and effort is not put into 2.