Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Weight, Paper, L85

ugly

LE
Moderator
I seem to remember, though, that Ring Sights once offered to make a 1x optical sight for the SA80 similar to those on the 94mm LAW for less than the price of a set of iron sights.....with the claimed bonus that they could be compatible with NVGs.....

This needs looking into. Do we have a post op evaluation board that looks at these things, even the seppo s do that!
Perhaps a staff suggestion scheme, now that would never be abused would it.
 
Gravelbelly said:
Regarding "compactness", it isn't just about exiting APCs. Think OBUA, and confined spaces in contact, without the "fraction of a second to snap open a folding stock". The "compactness" also applies to how long a barrel you can put in a weapon of a given length; look at the US types claiming that the M4 has a barrel that is so short it compromises the lethality of 5.56 NATO.

When it comes to ergonomics, I always found that the CofG of the SA80 was above the pistol grip. In other words, I can easily control it one-handed. Now, unless you had wrists like Garth, that was never something that was easy with the SLR. It's far less rear-heavy than the SLR was front-heavy.

"Push-through" safety agreed, but I can see space for engineering arguments over combining it with the change lever. For instance, how easy is it to make reliable a guaranteed-easy safety catch combined with a must-be-deliberate change-lever (remember how easy it was to go full-auto with the SMG?) when both are separated from the actual trigger mechanism. It's one of the problems that traditional layouts don't have, because there the thumb that works the catch is right next to the trigger mechanism.

Similarly, I agree that the iron sights are cr*p. Short sight base, awkward foresight that digs into things. In other words, just the same as the M4......namely, a function of the design. If you want iron sights for a short weapon where the barrel is in line with the buttplate, you have a short sight-base and stick-up foresights. Unlucky.

I seem to remember, though, that Ring Sights once offered to make a 1x optical sight for the SA80 similar to those on the 94mm LAW for less than the price of a set of iron sights.....with the claimed bonus that they could be compatible with NVGs.....

I found that the balance for the SA-80 was significantly behind my right hand. The SLR is not a front-heavy rifle with reference to other full-calibre battle rifles - try the Austrian Stg 58 (their FAL varient) - it has a huge muzzle device and a bipod. Now, that's front heavy! :lol:
 
I gather that the reason the EM2 couldn't be adapted for 5.56 is the same as why it couldn't be made to use 7.62 - it would need to be completely redesigned and that would have been too expensive.
As for Ugly's suggestion, is there any reason why 6.5 Swedish wouldn't make a better choice than either 5.56 or 7.62? As a sporting round I have always found it an almost ideal compromise, better stopping power than .223Rem and a less excessive kick than .308win combined with a very good trajectory. I have used it against sheep-worrying dogs (10stone doberman types before you snigger or question relevance - these were man-sized b@st@rds) and found it stopped them better than .223 and I have heard that it works well on boar. As a military cartridge I would think it's relative slimness compared to 308/7.62 (and 7mm British) would allow greater magazine capacities.
 
Cutaway said:
ote]A weapon system is called a system for a reason. It is not just a weapon, it is a cleaning kit, it is a person, it is the bayonet, it is everything.
Interesting, they're now either saying that they created the 'person' or that they can shrug off stoppages as the fault of the individual. I've always been chuffed with Royal's wpn skills [/quote]

Except that the Royals were not cleaning / maintaining their weapons correctly in that theatre, which contributed to their problems. We had a similar problem early in 03. Just didn't seem right to slap loads of oil on the weapon in the dust, but that was the right thing to do.

When will this debate die?
 
dogmonkey said:
When will this debate die?

When we crimp off Cutaways fingers with bolt croppers :D
 
EM2 was waaay before the US foisted the 5.56 onto NATO.
Even the FN/FAL was originally designed to take an "intermediate" round - 7.92x33"kurz" as used in the MP/StG44.
The US went for 7.62x51 because it could be manufactured on existing machinery & fitted in with the ideas of the "old guard" who likely never had to carry a full load of rifle ammunition.
When it was realised that the M14/FAL etc. were virtually uncontrollable in full-auto, they went to the other extreme with the M16.
The "too many calibres" argument for keeping the 5.56 round doesn't hold water when you look at current weapons:
SA80 & Minimi; 5.56
MAG 7.62
HMG/M2 derivatives 12.7BMG
Change to a 6.5/6.8mm round & you can replace the 1st two with one type, thus reducing the weight carried for the MAG team, whilst enhancing the knock-down capabilities of the IW for a minimal weight gain, whilst retaining FA controllability.
 
There were a significant number of EM-2s built in 7.62mm NATO - I've seen one. It was not adopted because it was significantly cheaper to produce FALs under licence than to produce the EM-2 in 7.62mm.

Oddbod - you are correct that the FAL was originally in 7.92kurz, but they also had an intermediate version in .280 British, to compete against the EM2. And yes, the US foisted 7.62mm NATO on us because it didn't want to play with the "whimpy" .280. Then 15 years later it adopts an even whimpier foxing cartridge!

If you look carefully at the headstamp on SA-80 and Minimi ammo, you'll find that they're different - the SA-80 carts are loaded with stick powder, the Minimi with ball powder (it might be the other way around...). Using one in the other will gunk up the gas system faster!!! So even they are not totally interchangeable!

As for 6.5 Swedish, it's a long, full power round, albeit of a smaller calibre (6.5x55mm, cf. 7.62x51, 5.56x45, 7.62x39). A better bet for an assault rifle would be 6mm BR or 6.5mm BR - short and fat and not quite so highly powered.
 
It seems the praise for the SUSAT may be a little misguided as it too has several long standing defects that effects accuracy and useability:

1. Objective lens working loose in it's cell affecting line of sight, inducing parallax and allowing ingress of moisture.

2. Field lens in eyepiece working loose in it's cell affecting focus and allowing ingress of moisture.

3. The Aluminium alloy body so soft that the front battlesight wears away and the rear battlesight shears at the slightest knock.

4. The eyeguard prone to disintigration when in contact with insect repellant.

5. Additionally procurement agencies did not take into account the effective life of the Tritium light source. This led to a major shortage of replacements seriously effecting low light sighting ability.

It should be noted that all of these faults required replacement of parts as opposed to repair, significantly increasing costs.

Better than a bloody iron sight though :wink:
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
wibblefishbanana said:
It seems the praise for the SUSAT may be a little misguided as it too has several long standing defects that effects accuracy and useability:

1. Objective lens working loose in it's cell affecting line of sight, inducing parallax and allowing ingress of moisture.

2. Field lens in eyepiece working loose in it's cell affecting focus and allowing ingress of moisture.

3. The Aluminium alloy body so soft that the front battlesight wears away and the rear battlesight shears at the slightest knock.

4. The eyeguard prone to disintigration when in contact with insect repellant.

5. Additionally procurement agencies did not take into account the effective life of the Tritium light source. This led to a major shortage of replacements seriously effecting low light sighting ability.

It should be noted that all of these faults required replacement of parts as opposed to repair, significantly increasing costs.

Better than a bloody iron sight though :wink:
Not sure about all iron sights ie slr but better than a suit sight. I cosidered myself lucky in that mine was BLR before deploying to Belfast in 83 so I used iron sights for the whole tour and still out shot everyone in the pln on the pipe range.
I have nothing but praise for the susat in comparisom. Mine fell apart durin a climb up a tower in S Armagh and when I found all the bits, bagged them up and had it reassembled it was only 4 inches low at 25 yards. No problem to adjust that.
back to the 6.5 roud I think that a stubby BR case may reduce mag capacity which is why I suggested the new wssm needed research!
 
Yeah, I know the 6.5 Swedish is a full power.
I was thinking about the new stuff that they're producing in the US - the 6.5Grendel & the 6.8SPC; the latter is in limited use by their SF.

I didn't know they had tested the EM2 with 7.62x51 - adds to the info. I have on it.

Thanks
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Problem is with the septics that they think by throwing money at something instead of looking around and seeing what might fit the bill. The WSSM winchester short Magnums in theory give 3006/7.62 velocity in a 556 length case. If the balance is right then these would probably be good enough. There really is little need in an infantry rifle to go over 7mm. I love my 303's but 7mm mauser put paid to many military careers in South Africa and Cuba. 6.5 also levelled a lot of russians during the Finnish wars. We are goping down the techno solution road perhaps a shortened 6.5 would help?
This would be fun to trial but unfortunately in this country almost impossible for a civvy to do without winning the lottery and becoming a section 5 dealer. Dont tell my 2i/c but thats what I would do and manufacture quality 303 military ammo!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
What is needed here a new round or a new weapon to fire it and what comes first?
 
Ugly, I've been told that barrel wear with WSSM cartridges is excessive do you know whether this is true or not?


BTW I know 6.5 Swedish is a full power cartridge so perhaps a cut down version would be prefferable, however my opinion is that felt recoil from the x55 cartridge is less than .308 Win. So has anyone actually tried using it in an assault rifle or self loader?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
There was the Ljungman self-loader which was produced, unsurprisingly. in Sweden.
It was gas operated and locked similarly to the SLR.

The Gyppos used the system in their 7.92 Hakim, (of which more at a later date I hope,) and if the ragged remains of my brain serve me correctly also in the Rasheed but chambered in 7.62 x 39.

But I may be talking gonads at this time of night !
 
Cutaway said:
There was the Ljungman self-loader which was produced, unsurprisingly. in Sweden.
It was gas operated and locked similarly to the SLR.

The Gyppos used the system in their 7.92 Hakim, (of which more at a later date I hope,) and if the ragged remains of my brain serve me correctly also in the Rasheed but chambered in 7.62 x 39.

But I may be talking gonads at this time of night !

you think the time of day has anything to do with it? :wink:
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
That's a fair one CC !

:lol: :lol:
 
There's no way that the WSM ammunition could be considered for military use:
They're too large in diameter for a double-stack magazine.
Too much recoil for FA/3rd burst use.
A lot heavier than 5.56/6.5/6.8mm

As far as the chicken/egg decision over a new weapon or new ammunition goes; It would be best to develop a weapon around an already proven round, so that it is built to withstand what it uses.

The current "fashion" of short barrelled assault rifles a' la M4 isn't going to produce a weapon to "reach out & touch" the opposition much past 300m.
Perhaps this is why the US military are so dependant on close support weapons?

5.56 isn't going to produce a good compromise between lightness of load & hitting power at medium distances, no matter what they do with it.

6.5/6.8 isn't far off 7.62 out to 600m, so would be effective both for IW & LSW/LMG, with only a small weight penalty.

It wouldn't surprise me to see an M16 based 6.8mm weapon become a real contender - especially if they modify it so it doesn't shlt where it eats by using a gas piston.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Bladensburg said:
Ugly, I've been told that barrel wear with WSSM cartridges is excessive do you know whether this is true or not?


BTW I know 6.5 Swedish is a full power cartridge so perhaps a cut down version would be prefferable, however my opinion is that felt recoil from the x55 cartridge is less than .308 Win. So has anyone actually tried using it in an assault rifle or self loader?
I have no evidence about barrel wear, I will try to find out. I believe that barrel wear and gas parts cleaning is subjective. Chrome lining, changing powders, stainless barrels etc all contribute to longevity and a longer MTBF. The problem with hunting ammo is who will subject an expensive hunting rifle to 10, 000 round no clean wear tests, Almost all new sporting rifles come with breaking in of barrel instructions. I was concerned that the availability of this ammo for testing would be missed. After all if its produced commercially in a factory then production niggles and tolerance problems have been ironed out by now. The 6.5 is a low felt recoil round out of my stalking rifle and will operate self loading mechanisms reasonably. Whether it can be used full auto or shortened slightly without reduction in its famous ballistic efficiency then testing id needed. I obviously am the man to do this so when as I said before I win the Lottery watch out watch out!
Not sure per se whether the case dimensions of short magnums or super short magnums precludes double stack mags, this obviously would be less of a concern in a belt feed machine. The Remington 7/700 series that are chambered I believe do not need a special magazine not already available.
Want to find out? I do!
 
ugly said:
Bladensburg said:
Ugly, I've been told that barrel wear with WSSM cartridges is excessive do you know whether this is true or not?


BTW I know 6.5 Swedish is a full power cartridge so perhaps a cut down version would be prefferable, however my opinion is that felt recoil from the x55 cartridge is less than .308 Win. So has anyone actually tried using it in an assault rifle or self loader?
I have no evidence about barrel wear, I will try to find out. I believe that barrel wear and gas parts cleaning is subjective. Chrome lining, changing powders, stainless barrels etc all contribute to longevity and a longer MTBF. The problem with hunting ammo is who will subject an expensive hunting rifle to 10, 000 round no clean wear tests, Almost all new sporting rifles come with breaking in of barrel instructions. I was concerned that the availability of this ammo for testing would be missed. After all if its produced commercially in a factory then production niggles and tolerance problems have been ironed out by now. The 6.5 is a low felt recoil round out of my stalking rifle and will operate self loading mechanisms reasonably. Whether it can be used full auto or shortened slightly without reduction in its famous ballistic efficiency then testing id needed. I obviously am the man to do this so when as I said before I win the Lottery watch out watch out!
Not sure per se whether the case dimensions of short magnums or super short magnums precludes double stack mags, this obviously would be less of a concern in a belt feed machine. The Remington 7/700 series that are chambered I believe do not need a special magazine not already available.
Want to find out? I do!

These short cartridges like the BR carts have a rim diameter similar to 7.62mm NATO, so there's no issue with double-stack mags. I don't know about the more powerful WSM cartridges so wouldn't like to comment.
 

Latest Threads

Top