Spams open competition for M16/M4 replacement

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by stoatman, Mar 10, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Change the calibre, dammit! :evil:
  2. If they are going to stay with the 5.56, why change weapons systems? :roll:

    I agree, change the caliber!
  3. Unfortunately they cant change the caliber due to NATO complience. If the're interested, we've got a few hundred thousand SA80 A2's they can have :wink:

  4. What is the point in looking for a new weapons system that is to be hamstrung from the start by limiting it to 5.56 rounds?
    The sensible thing to do, would be to get ALL the users of NATO STANAG equipment together & garner their views.
    The US has foisted TWO less than satisfactory standard rounds onto NATO in the last 50-odd years; one too powerful & one too weak.
    Surely anyone with half a brain.........

    ..........ah! I see what the problem is :roll:
  5. I think that as before the US will do what it considers suits the US best and let the Euro army go it's own way.
    Have the US arms manufactures got tgether and decided they will design and equip the US military and have no Euro weapon at the heart of the US military ?
    Remember the fuss when Berreta won the pistol contract.
  6. IIRC, it only takes one NATO nation to establish a STANAG! Also, there are significant differences between NATO standard ammunition manufactured by different NATO nations. The only criterion for standardisation is that the ammunition will function in any weapon, not that it has identical ballistics. At least that was the case with 7.62. See

    for more details.

    So, yes, I have no doubt that the US will do what it wants to do in the matter of ammunition design.
  7. 6.8mm seems like a good bet. I believe remmington have developed the round fro US SF. I dont know the balistics off hand, but it seems like a good balance between 5.56 (too light) and 7.62 (too heavy).

    Yes it would mean changes to STANAG, but hey we had SLR's for years after the M16 was standard issue to the spams. Britfor could adopt the new round in a new rifle (please something engineered not slapped togeather) in about 10 years time when the SA80 family and GPMG will need replacing.
  8. how bout we swap............sa80's and (bolloocks) lsw's for them.m4's m16's and maybe some m240's for us.fair swap i say!!
  9. I am guessing because SA80 A2 is significantly more reliable than the M16. We already have the under slung grenade launcher and Minimi. The GPMG is better than the M60 Hence the American Special Forces tend to use GPMG

  10. It didn't stop them changing over to 5.56mm when 7.62mm was NATO compliment.
    I would like to see the British Experimental .280 looked at again, and come to think about it do we actually need to be calibre complient these days even within NATO now that we are friends with Boris again?

    When was the last time we lent or borrowed small arms ammunition from the Spams?
  11. I have fired our ammo threw M16 and at 25m it was going threw the targets side on.

  12. deleted as i messed up the quoting bit :oops:
  13. When was the last time we borrowed small arms ammo off the spams
    Telic 1 by all acounts.
  14. It is an interesting concept but it would have to have better reliability than firing pin precaution cap before it would be considered for military use. Another issue would be the energy source to create the spark.

    Some of the most accurate civilian rifles already have electronic triggers. It is just like the modern cars with no mechanical linkage from brake to calliper!

    I can only assume these cars have 100% reliability with these systems because failure could be catastrophic.