The SA80 "under fire" again

#1
Telegraphy Linky - size DOES matter

"The study, co-written by Nicholas Drummond, a strategy consultant and ex-Welsh Guards officer, described British soldiers' rifles as "not much more useful than a peashooter".

Taliban marksmen use powerful 7.62mm ammo for their AK47 machine guns, according to a report of the study in The Sun.

Mr Drummond told the newspaper that a British soldier couldn't attack the Taliban "with any certainty that if he hits the enemy he will kill or incapacitate him."

The study claims the ammunition is easily stopped by car doors. It added that Javelin anti-tank missiles, costing £100,000 each, are often fired at lone gunmen. Only one in four British, US and German troops has been issued with guns using 7.62mm ammunition.

The report calls for guns that take larger ammunition to replace all standard-issue SA80 rifles, which many believe were exposed as inadequate in Iraq in 2003. "
 
#2
Bring back the SLR.
The old and bold will tell you; It was big and heavy and cumbersome, but you knew it would do the bizz and it could stop an elephant at half a mile.
 
#3
scoobydont said:
Bring back the SLR.
The old and bold will tell you; It was big and heavy and cumbersome, but you knew it would do the bizz and it could stop an elephant at half a mile.
I recall a Black taxi that had been shot up by 7,62, the rounds had gone through the boot, back seat, the passenger , the bulkhead,the front seat ,the driver, out through the bonnet and on up the street, I dont think a 556 would do that,I know the Mini 14 I had a few years ago would not
 
#4
I always thought another 'plus point' of 5.56 was the interoperability with the rest of NATO. And I'm also fairly sure that a round from a 5.56 would put anyone on their arrse.
 
#5
kimmi851 said:
Taliban marksmen use powerful 7.62mm ammo for their AK47 machine guns, according to a report of the study in The Sun.
My bold

Here we go again! 7.62 v 5.56

Doesn't seam like a huge contradiction - a marksman using a machine gun?

Written by someone who doesn't know what they’re talking about possibly?
 
#6
Non event. Inaccurate report written by a non-entity.
 
#8
It will most certainly go through a car door, which means it will also go through an unarmored body.
The 'dropping' factor of 5,56 is the true question however, but that has been discussed again and again on here.
 
#10
From " The modern Brotish Army" 1980 The 5.56 mm cartridge has for long been the the subject of controversy, but its success can be measured by its adoption by many nations.The cartridge produces low recoil forces and make it easy to aim and fire and the bullet posses sufficient striking power to DISABLE an opponant at most combat ranges
 
#11
I'm looking forward to the input from the usal posters on the Shooting forum. They will spout endless drivel about the SLR being a manstopper and the A2 rifle not being fit for purpose. The irony being that they have not fired either rifle for "real".
 
#12
This quote I believe is the main thrust:

A survey of more than 50 servicemen who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded that the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by British soldiers 'tailed off' after 300 metres yet half of all Helmand firefights are fought between 300 and 900 metres.
Having never been in these sandy places, I find it surprising that a whole 50 servicemen[/women] are used as the basis of this survey.

It says half of engagements are at 300-900m, so that means that half are under 300m. The SLR was a superb weapon, but not sure it would be of use in this theatre. Primarily because it doesn't have an auto function (yes, I know all about the matchstick) and its size for FIBUA/CQB or whatever it's called now.

There was a thread not long ago, on the merits of the A2. IRRC, it came out very well in penetration and the ability to 'put a man down 1st hit', so am doubly surprised by this.

I look forward to comments from they guys, that have actually 'been there and done that'.
 
#13
Geordie_Blerk said:
I'm looking forward to the input from the usal posters on the Shooting forum. They will spout endless drivel about the SLR being a manstopper and the A2 rifle not being fit for purpose. The irony being that they have not fired either rifle for "real".
No you're right, the SLR has never been fired in anger. :roll:
 
#15
Is Colt or FN coming out with a new 7.62 model?

I smell a backhander/product placement coming on. :wink:
 
#16
Most people dont know but it was the British Army who first used the 5.56 mm in 1961 when 10,000 AR15/M16s were obtained from Colt for use by the Gurkhas and other troops stationed outside Nato,
 
#17
I know muzzle energy isn't the whole story, but given that 7.62 x 51 is twice as powerful as 5.56, there's going to be SOME difference in effectiveness surely?
 
#18
Recce19 said:
Geordie_Blerk said:
I'm looking forward to the input from the usal posters on the Shooting forum. They will spout endless drivel about the SLR being a manstopper and the A2 rifle not being fit for purpose. The irony being that they have not fired either rifle for "real".
No you're right, the SLR has never been fired in anger. :roll:
I stated that "THEY" had not fired either weapon for real.

Thanks for that, now can I see your penis please?
 
#19
mac1 said:
I know muzzle energy isn't the whole story, but given that 7.62 x 51 is twice as powerful as 5.56, there's going to be SOME difference in effectiveness surely?
I don't understand why this is coming out now. As stated above, the bullets from the SLR will go through anything and anything behind it.
That would mean that any Taliban/AQ shot at would also very likely kill/injure some 'innocent' bystander. That just won't do, old horse. McChrystal has insisted, time and time again, no collateral damage! :wink:
 
#20
The 5.56 was meant to be a light automatic for jungle use at ranges below 300m, not 300 to 900m as now
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top