• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

MINIMI GOOD, LSW NOT SO GOOD

#61
But the A2 became a much, much better weapon.
Absolutely. Chiefly by throwing money at the problem, something which could have been avoided by not cost engineering the original design...

Bitter, moi?
 
#63
I'm not doubting that you've hit targets at 600yds (presumably Century Range, but all the ARA section shoots I dimly remember didn't have the rifles playing until 400m); I've done it too (six hits out of seven) but it needed me to have an AMS next to me, and a shedload of aim-off. If the AMS hadn't been telling me where the shots were going, then I'd have been guessing - and that applies double to any field firing. "Observed strike" with a burst from SF at 800m is achievable, but with a shot from a rifle, against undergrowth rather than the fields of Otterburn / Warcop, or manicured ranges of Bisley? Dream on.

Yes, firing as a section is possible - but there's a reason that the maximum range of it was quoted as 600m. Namely, beyond that you're probably wasting ammunition - if you've only got 80 rounds in your four SLR magazines, then blazing away with an attempt to hit with every thirtieth shot isn't good sense. That's why you've got mortars / SF MGs....

PS When I used SUIT it had that little lever that was used to change zero from 300m to 500m. Not great for aimed shots at 800m.
Must admit the 800m shots were more by luck then design and not too many of them and I used a shedload of holdover, tbh I was more then suprised but it didn't diminish the bragging rights!
 
#64
#65
Yep. It's basically the HK-416 in drag. There's a theory that the M27 only got accepted by the USMC as a way of sneaking in a replacement for the M4A1 by the backdoor, by fooling Congress that it was just a LSW, which would be supplemented by a much wider adoption in the future.

There IS a HK417, in 7.62mm NATO, see here:

Heckler & Koch HK417 - Wikipedia

which for some stupid reason known only to HK themselves is select-fire rather than restricted to semi-automatic. Unless they've changed the laws of physics, I'd rather not fire that in full-auto from the shoulder, thanks very much.

USSOCOM are planning on buying a few thousand of them as the M110A1, and some of our police forces use them as sniper weapons.
 
#66
Sorry, I find the concept of "police sniper" an oxymoron. "Marksman", maybe.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#67
#68
There IS a HK417, in 7.62mm NATO, see here:
Heckler & Koch HK417 - Wikipedia
Unless they've changed the laws of physics, I'd rather not fire that in full-auto from the shoulder, thanks very much.
.
It's not too bad with short bursts relatively speaking. Being over engineered (and over weight compared to .308 semi/autos) helps keep it controllable. Definitely prefer our DMW's to it though, Same LMT platform as the L129A1 but with a bigger optic and longer barrel.
 
#70
My bad, I obviously got the M27 IAR confused with the HK417; that said, if we were to go the same route at section level, I would prefer the support weapon to be 7.62mm calibre.
The HK417 is a DMR “type” of rifle that lost out the LMT in trials.
 
#71
My bad, I obviously got the M27 IAR confused with the HK417; that said, if we were to go the same route at section level, I would prefer the support weapon to be 7.62mm calibre.
That's a lot of 7.62 mags to carry for the gunner and only the section marksman to share ammo with. H&K doesn't help things by having proprietary mags for the 417 rather than the vastly more common AR10 types found with the L129A1
 
#76
I remember the weight of 7.62mm ammunition, having been issued the L1A1 SLR when I first joined up in 1994 (we go the L85A1 in 1995). To my (simple) mind, there should be a mix of ammunition types (yes, I know that it complicates resupply) because we wish to achieve different effects. A 5.56mm rifle is ideal but a light support weapon would be better in a heavier calibre i.e. 7.62mm. I would also prefer a solution more in-line with the BREN and less in-line with the BAR.
 
#78
My bad, I obviously got the M27 IAR confused with the HK417; that said, if we were to go the same route at section level, I would prefer the support weapon to be 7.62mm calibre.
We have had a 7.62mm Marksmans rifle for the last 6 years. L129A1, its fine from all shooting positions as a semi-auto battle rifle, in the prone you can rapidly put rds on target out too 300, if it was auto you would just be wasting ammo, its far far too light for auto support fire from any position, and you can smash out the muzzle energy at short range enough in semi anyway.

The main issue with Minimi is the system is worn out, its a lightweight made wpn, after all these years of use they are slogged out, its either referb or replace time.
As stated by others we picked the wrong model, longer barrel and more solid fixed stock would have got 150-200 meters more effective rage out of it.
The main original issue with the LSW was that is was an A1....... since the A2 upgrade the bolt don't melt and stoppage drills are a rarity, now with the better A3 more rigid uppers the previous tight cone of fire is even better,
IMHO you can knock over falling plates a lot quicker with a LSW out to 300 mtrs than you can with a Minimi.

16650453_10154466721474163_1181293599_n.jpg
 
#79
In this day and age, I believe to go solely down the mag fed or belt fed LSW route is a mistake and risks leaving the rifle section (and by default the Platoon) in a pigeon hole. It sounds like in the UK both systems have got a bad rep be it through initial design (L-86) or introduction issues (Minimi UOR'd with short barrels and sustained/heavy service life).
Given most new service rifle systems are pushing individual capabilities out to 600m (as we are finding with our new MARS-L in the NZDF) more is expected out of the LSW's and DMW's.
We went the other way with our Infantry sections by dropping the 5.56 Minimi/C9 (long barrel) for the 7.62 version and swapped out a rifle for the DMW. The aim to have a good mix of precision fire and accurate suppressive fire at section level.
After having clapped out Minimi's that were at least 20yrs old the 7.62 was a big step up. Its a good bit of kit and a comfortable carry with a 50-100rd box, optics and ancillaries and is set up for in line NVE. It can do the same as a MAG/L7 out to 600m in the hands of a competent gunner. The DMW with 20in barrel and optic are a good accompaniment to the gun with an effective range at 800m+ and the section commander now has a 3-18X optic to call on.
 
Last edited:

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#80
It tended to help some what having commonality with ammo and mags with the rest of the section.
Ammunition was compatible but I was not aware that SMLE/No 4 mags were compatible with Bren mags.
 

Similar threads

Top