SA80 Replacement on the distant horizon ?

ugly

LE
Moderator
As ever you are my guru in these things :thumright:

I barely even have a clue wot the '08' bit means :-D
Made using the.308 Win case which is really.300 Savage!
Necking down brass creates a thicker neck with the problem of uniform neck turning adding to the complexity! Use the original parent case and it’s usually drama free however factory brass has been around since the 1950’s!
 
SIG have also won the PDW contract for the US SOCOM in both 5.56 and 300 Blackout. Winning the Pistol, NGSW, and the PDW so I'm guessing SIG shares must be worth a bit at the moment. They are also bidding for the .338NM/LWMMG project.

One thing I noticed is that with a few XM-5 reviews appearing on YouTube now. A lot of the shooters look to be getting knocked around by the recoil a fair bit. Then I watched a review by Garand Thumb (former US Mil/SOF) throw it around like an M4. Unsure if it was being Ex Mil vs an Enthusiast or creative editing or a variation in the ammo or something totally left field. It would be interesting to see some of the eval info rather than the youtube filtered stuff.
Some sources on line are saying there are civilian loadings of the 6.8 SIG cartridge with lower pressure or lighter bullets, so it's possible that not everybody you are seeing is shooting the same round.

There has been a severe dearth of hard information on this military cartridge and its actual performance. I will take everything that I hear about it with a grain of salt until someone has a chance to produce some hard data that shows whether the reality lives up to the hype.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Is the 7mm 08 not a 51mm length cartridge case ---whereas the fine British 7mm NATO cartridge case was 43mm length? Just asking!
Yes however a full length cartridge was offered late in the trials, my book is downstairs so it was either 7mm optimum or similar
In the end the US were adamant about a 30 cal for at least the next five years!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Sorry Liviano was the Venezualan 7x49, the optimum was parallel I think and also used a 49mm case
 

Mufulira42

War Hero
Yes however a full length cartridge was offered late in the trials, my book is downstairs so it was either 7mm optimum or similar
In the end the US were adamant about a 30 cal for at least the next five years!
Colonel Studler must be writhing at the iteration of a 7mm/268 cartridge making its appearance
 
Webbing..?
I knoes wot 'webbing' meenz, thanx:
2C0C32F300000578-0-image-a-9_1441633313702.jpg
 
Here it comes
Here it comes
Here it comes
Here it comes
Here comes the 19th calibre bore down ;)
 

Mufulira42

War Hero
Yes however a full length cartridge was offered late in the trials, my book is downstairs so it was either 7mm optimum or similar
In the end the US were adamant about a 30 cal for at least the next five years!
Yes even after UK abandoned the 280/30 as it is now termed here, the Canadian army persisted with trials inthe 7mm HV by lengthening the case and boosting velocity to no avail Col Studler would not be convinced otherwise
 
Yes even after UK abandoned the 280/30 as it is now termed here, the Canadian army persisted with trials inthe 7mm HV by lengthening the case and boosting velocity to no avail Col Studler would not be convinced otherwise
US objections were really based on their belief that they would save money by re-using existing firearms and production tooling. The supposed technical objections were an attempt to dress up political and economic reasons as something less self-serving.

I don't think however that adoption of 7mm in any form would have made any ultimate difference to the decision to pick something like 5.56mm. The Soviets also developed 5.45mm and the Chinese developed 5.8mm despite having 7.62x39mm due to the savings in weight of ammunition. NATO would have eventually come to the same conclusion, although it may have taken longer.
 
The official excuse of re-using existing firearms and tooling might have been valid if they'd done what the Italians did with the BM-59, and not the total receiver redesign that went into the M14.
 
The official excuse of re-using existing firearms and tooling might have been valid if they'd done what the Italians did with the BM-59, and not the total receiver redesign that went into the M14.
If the Americans had adopted the UK 7mm round in its original form they could have been able to design a new rifle which did more or less what they wanted out of the M14. Trying to do that with 7.62x51mm was hopeless to begin with.
 
US objections were really based on their belief that they would save money by re-using existing firearms and production tooling. The supposed technical objections were an attempt to dress up political and economic reasons as something less self-serving.

I don't think however that adoption of 7mm in any form would have made any ultimate difference to the decision to pick something like 5.56mm. The Soviets also developed 5.45mm and the Chinese developed 5.8mm despite having 7.62x39mm due to the savings in weight of ammunition. NATO would have eventually come to the same conclusion, although it may have taken longer.
I think there was another aspect of American experience that you need to factor in when considering why they were reluctant to adopt a rifle in a true intermediate calibre. Pretty much all of the American officers involved with development and trials of a new rifle had gone through WW2 with as far as they were concerned a modern self loading rifle that gave them firepower overmatch in the theatres they were primarily engaged in. In most places the Americans were engaged in combat they were facing troops armed with K98K and Arisaka bolt action rifles. Even their allied troops in those same theatres were using a bolt action Lee Enfield variant. They only had limited exposure to the new Sturmgewehr types in Italy and Western Europe which they assumed to be sub machine guns. They also didn't experience the mass use of submachine guns by frontline troops on the Eastern Front. As far as the Americans were concerned they had a modern capable rifle that gave them overmatch so why change?

Interestingly they were far more enthusiastic to develop and adopt a modern GPMG considering the indelible mark the MG34 and MG42 left upon their psyche combined with how absurdly obsolete the infantry machine guns they operated were (excepting the blessed M2 of course....)

I think for us British as we were forced to enter WW2 with an obsolete bolt action that we had already tried to replace prior to the war and due to the decision in 1942 that a self loading rifle would be adopted by 1945/6ish we were far more open to new ideas.
 

Mufulira42

War Hero
I think there was another aspect of American experience that you need to factor in when considering why they were reluctant to adopt a rifle in a true intermediate calibre. Pretty much all of the American officers involved with development and trials of a new rifle had gone through WW2 with as far as they were concerned a modern self loading rifle that gave them firepower overmatch in the theatres they were primarily engaged in. In most places the Americans were engaged in combat they were facing troops armed with K98K and Arisaka bolt action rifles. Even their allied troops in those same theatres were using a bolt action Lee Enfield variant. They only had limited exposure to the new Sturmgewehr types in Italy and Western Europe which they assumed to be sub machine guns. They also didn't experience the mass use of submachine guns by frontline troops on the Eastern Front. As far as the Americans were concerned they had a modern capable rifle that gave them overmatch so why change?

Interestingly they were far more enthusiastic to develop and adopt a modern GPMG considering the indelible mark the MG34 and MG42 left upon their psyche combined with how absurdly obsolete the infantry machine guns they operated were (excepting the blessed M2 of course....)

I think for us British as we were forced to enter WW2 with an obsolete bolt action that we had already tried to replace prior to the war and due to the decision in 1942 that a self loading rifle would be adopted by 1945/6ish we were far more open to new ideas.
From what I've read the stats derived from WWII by the British ensured need for an intermediate cartridge of lesser calibre than .303 0r the .30-06 as most shots taken were no longer at massive ranges e.g. Nile Campaign and Boer War where a so-called puny 7mm calibre Mauser allowed those damnable farmers to shoot our brave lads. Taking the 7.9 Kurtz fielded by the opposition in WWII and shrinking cartridge dimensions came up with an acceptable 7mm Mk1 Z. There were demonstrations of both an experimental EM2 rifle and an LMG to replace the Bren and possibly Vickers which can be seen on You Tube. Steel helmet penetration at sufficient ranges to satisfy most chair- bound generals.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
The initial testing of the British ammo showed a lack of power and penetration. This was addressed by using the 300 savage case (the same one the US was using for the T65) and performance apart from the 600 yard bullet drop test (not considered necessary by the BBC as 300 yards was deemed to be sufficient) (BBC being British, Belgian & Canadian) was meeting the parameters set out by the US Ordnance team. Sadly it wasn’t accepted as it was too late for the trials!
The bullet drop at 600 yards was five feet meaning that targets between 300 and 600 yards if misjudged would mean targets could be shot over or under by accident!
As pointed out targets beyond 500 yards was outside of the distance intended for riflemen to engage as individuals!
 
I think there was another aspect of American experience that you need to factor in when considering why they were reluctant to adopt a rifle in a true intermediate calibre. Pretty much all of the American officers involved with development and trials of a new rifle had gone through WW2 with as far as they were concerned a modern self loading rifle that gave them firepower overmatch in the theatres they were primarily engaged in. In most places the Americans were engaged in combat they were facing troops armed with K98K and Arisaka bolt action rifles. Even their allied troops in those same theatres were using a bolt action Lee Enfield variant. They only had limited exposure to the new Sturmgewehr types in Italy and Western Europe which they assumed to be sub machine guns. They also didn't experience the mass use of submachine guns by frontline troops on the Eastern Front. As far as the Americans were concerned they had a modern capable rifle that gave them overmatch so why change?

Interestingly they were far more enthusiastic to develop and adopt a modern GPMG considering the indelible mark the MG34 and MG42 left upon their psyche combined with how absurdly obsolete the infantry machine guns they operated were (excepting the blessed M2 of course....)

I think for us British as we were forced to enter WW2 with an obsolete bolt action that we had already tried to replace prior to the war and due to the decision in 1942 that a self loading rifle would be adopted by 1945/6ish we were far more open to new ideas.
I believe that one of the goals for the M14 was to replace the submachine gun as well as rifle and LMG. It was unrealistic to attempt this with anything other than an intermediate cartridge.

The root of the problem I believe was an attempt to satisfy conflicting objectives.
 

Latest Threads

Top