SA80 Replacement on the distant horizon ?

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Too f'ing small sometimes, had a short but uncomfortable time on the ranges once when we couldn't account for one. Someone had put an ammo container down on top of it.

I suspect not as uncomfortable as the bloke I saw shoot his own finger* with one, having accidentally put it over the front guard.

*He just nicked the edge of it. No permanent harm done but it was very funny watching him try to keep shooting while pissing blood from his hand.
 
Hoist, petard, etc.

We for a while were out of the small arms ammunition business. I'm glad to see we're not, and thanks for sharing. It should never have been allowed to happen.

Correction: we were out of the propellant business, having to import from a BAE-owned factory in Holland. Is that still the case?

In truth I don't know. Radway Green started producing again after the bad publicity about underpowered/cheap ammunition I think.
 
Sorry to jump back to the "training scar" thing, but here's my big one:

I'm so used to dropping empty mags on the floor that I find it very difficult to retain them on the clock and tend to end up dropping them anyway. I really, really need to spend some time practicing that...
 
"NOTICE of Withdrawal as Co-Counsel by USA as to Guy Savage, Sabre Defence Industries, LLC, Charles Shearon, Elmer Hill, Michael Curlett, Arnold See, Jr (Jaworski, Thomas) (Entered: 10/11/2018"

Does that mean its all over , he`s no longer going to stand trial?
 
Strange, because l have read that the U.S. Military adopted the 5.56mm Round on an interim basis until the new experimental Flachette Round could be perfected and mass produced for the U.S.
Ultimately the Flachette Round concept was a failure and the 5.56 Round became standard by default.

Mr Anthony G. Williams wrote about all of this on his Website.
Was that part of the Special Purpose Individual Weapon project of the 50s ? As that looks to have been a bit of dog's dinner ?

The rifle that became the M16 seems to date to a 1957 started project so the two projects don't seem to connect much.
 

NemoIII

War Hero
So a training package being supervised by safety staff who insist that the safety catch is applied before moving ? Are those safety staff going to be there in a contact in a real engagement ?

Having been infantry, on livefire Section, Platoon and Company ranges the use of the safety catch was often not used when bounding. Yes the safety catch would be used on the regroup but hardly an inconvenience.

I find it hard to believe PARAs would be using a safety catch while bounding in a Jungle environment.

The only weapons that were required to use the safety catch was LMG/GPMG as it fired from a open bolt.

Where's the suspects saying GPMG is rubbish as the safety catch isn't very ergonomic?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Was that part of the Special Purpose Individual Weapon project of the 50s ? As that looks to have been a bit of dog's dinner ?

The rifle that became the M16 seems to date to a 1957 started project so the two projects don't seem to connect much.
There's been all sorts. SPIW was one program(me), there was the Advanced Combat Rifle, Objective Infantry Combat Weapon and others.

Everything seems to lead back to the M-16.
 
Why?
Diemaco have supplied many thousands of C8's to HMG for a decade now.

You just absolutely know, the minute production in the UK was a thing, every grubby Politician and his dog would be angling for production to be set up in a converted chicken factory in his shire, with the local illiterate unemployable Gogs making them.
Diemaco haven't existed as a company since 2005. They were bought out by the licensor, Colt Defence. It's Colt Canada that supply the C8.
 

tgo

War Hero
Wonder what the thinking behind a flechette round was, I know arty flechette rounds were nasty, but on a small arm?

Clearly they hadn't thought it through well enough as the idea was binned.
 
Whatever went on before, the A3 works.

Some people here don't want to accept that, though.
As does / did the A2.

And wasn't there something from the Royal Marines that gave much improved reliability for the A1 by simple expedient of using a lot more rifle lubricant?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Wonder what the thinking behind a flechette round was, I know arty flechette rounds were nasty, but on a small arm?

Clearly they hadn't thought it through well enough as the idea was binned.
Windage. It's not necessary like a canister round. It's a single 'dart' in a mini-sabot.

A problem is terminal effect; in English, that means lethality.

See here:
 
Self awareness at last.




  • greater accuracy over longer ranges
  • greater penetration at longer ranges - and there is AIUI an increasing use of body armour by those who wish us harm
  • greater lethality
For yonks - and I mean at least three quarters of the 20th century - a striking force of 80 joules/60 foot pounds was a magically quoted figure in military circles, including Brits, for the amount of residual projectile energy required to be almost certain of producing an incapacitating wound. I suppose that with the modern penchant for body armour this can no longer be relied upon.

I know that much lower energies can cause fatal/serious injuries - many years ago I had the depressing experience of giving evidence to a Coroner about an air rifle involved in a death. It pumped out just under the FAC level of 12 ft/lbs.
 
Wonder what the thinking behind a flechette round was, I know arty flechette rounds were nasty, but on a small arm?

Clearly they hadn't thought it through well enough as the idea was binned.
Shotgun cartridges with about two dozen flechettes were briefly used by the US Army in Vietnam.
 

QRK2

LE
For yonks - and I mean at least three quarters of the 20th century - a striking force of 80 joules/60 foot pounds was a magically quoted figure in military circles, including Brits, for the amount of residual projectile energy required to be almost certain of producing an incapacitating wound. I suppose that with the modern penchant for body armour this can no longer be relied upon.

I know that much lower energies can cause fatal/serious injuries - many years ago I had the depressing experience of giving evidence to a Coroner about an air rifle involved in a death. It pumped out just under the FAC level of 12 ft/lbs.

80J and 30cm (IIRC, it was a little time ago) of penetration was the standard that I was given. The latter of course would include the body armour,
 
It took a lot of skill to fire an SLR well - it's long and heavy, not hugely accurate and took a lot of practice, which a lot of soldiers didn't get, cue @Stonker. It does look the part though, and the terminal effect was pretty good.
1. You can't learn to shoot any weapon well, if you only shoot a handful of times in a year.
a. Let alone learn to be a decent battle shot - that calls for ancillary skills, not least of which is locating a thoroughly uncooperative enemy.​
2. Terminal effect of 7.62 is arguably excessive for a modern infantry rifle. Recoil certainly is, for an assault rifle at any rate - and yes, I am indeed well aware that the personal weapon with which I was issued between 1973 and and 1986 was single shot only :roll:

Roll on SA80A1, A2, A3 and suddenly I can hit the target almost every time instead of just 2 out of 3, even without a SUSAT.

3. Which is excellent news: although many would argue (many based on recent sandy experience) that the terminal effects of 5.56 are insufficient at the extremity of its nominal effective range of SA80, which is disappointing.

4. Caveats in Para 1 and 1a apply equally to all infantry small arms users. Can't locate your enemy - then you're simply missing him with a higher degree of (in)accuracy to no good effect.

@Bubbles_Barker - Thank you for seeking my input :thumleft:
 
Wonder what the thinking behind a flechette round was, I know arty flechette rounds were nasty, but on a small arm?

Clearly they hadn't thought it through well enough as the idea was binned.
As far as I understand it the intent was to maximise velocity while minimising recoil. The intent behind that was to minimise aiming errors (short time of flight) and increase the number of chances (low recoil for high rate of fire and/or multiple projectiles per cartridge) to improve the probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions
 
2. Terminal effect of 7.62 is arguably excessive for a modern infantry rifle. Recoil certainly is, for an assault rifle at any rate - and yes, I am indeed well aware that the personal weapon with which I was issued between 1973 and and 1986 was single shot only :roll:

Yet the USMC is moving back to shooting single shots at targets at range, witness the wholesale adoption of the M27 rifle by the whole Corp....
 

Latest Threads

Top