Well, Forgive me for i must ask. LSW Mod?

Well, came across this. No idea if it has been mentioned before? Just wondered wtf? A new version or a prototype?
4th weapon in, no outrigger. Closer bipod.

That's not a CWS either!

As featured in Soldier Mag, there is indeed a UOR upgrade to the quote (I kid you not) "ever popular" LSW.

New bipod, pitacinny rail etc.

Haven't seen it, utility seems a bit iffy with the LMG and the new sharpshooter rifle fulfilling it's 2 possible roles. Lt wt GPMG also on the way too, if Soldier is to be believed.
Does it work?
Off topic , but what are the 2 large optical sights on thae aforementioned LSW and the one in the background?
NV and thermal?
I loved the way that the snippet contradicted itself "ever popular" followed by the quote "the soldiers do not like it...."
The LSW conversion was going to be part of a sharpshooter programme to give the best shot in the section a weapon that could reach out a bit further with its longer barrel and a higher mag scope. It was to be cost effective as armouries around the country have thousands of them languishing doing nothing. Since the 7.62mm LM&T has been introduced the LSW project in currently on the back burner, i believe.
It's hard to see what it does that that an L85 doesn't. The same bipod and forend will fit an L85 unless I'm very mistaken and the extra couple of inches of barrel hardly turns 5.56 into 7.62. I fail to see the point of it at all.

Could have just bought picatinny mount bipods and fitted the quad rail forend. LSW. It's a solution looking for a problem.....
EX_STAB said:
It's hard to see what it does that that an L85 doesn't. The same bipod and forend will fit an L85 unless I'm very mistaken and the extra couple of inches of barrel hardly turns 5.56 into 7.62. I fail to see the point of it at all.

Could have just bought picatinny mount bipods and fitted the quad rail forend. LSW. It's a solution looking for a problem.....
Forends between LSW and A2 are different, not compatible. The idea being that with its longer barrel ( increased velocity), it will reach out to 600m,( especially with better optics) covering a range gap between rifleman and sniper section. It was a cost effective solution to giving the infantry section a bit more range. As i said, the 7.62mm sharpshooter rifle has covered this base somewhat, although the distribution throughout the Infantry battalion will be limited, due to the numbers purchased by MOD. The LSW project was to give 1 per section. Plus it looks like a standard A2, generally, so does not stand out to the enemy.
It's an LSW with the outrigger removed, and a different bipod attached to the front of the original LSW handguard. Nothing too exciting about it.

This is something I worked on 3 years ago, to solve the DM capability and use the LSW. It was to be a cheap option at the time.

I am glad to see that the MOD have gone out and procured a DM rifle, however that will not solve the issue unless someone take HQ Inf by the ball's and writes the Tactical Doctrine and SCHINF design the course to meet that TD.

It is about the Man (Training,Selection) Weapon (Fixed) Sight (Fixed) Ammo (Fixed). The UK need to send a few good men to visit the US Army Marksmanship Unit in Fort Benning on the SDM Course otherwise the new Sharpshooter / DM will not be a capable shot.

This article was published in the Infantryman 2009 and the SASC Men at Arms 2008.


1. The desire to have a designated (organic) marksman at section level is now seen by American, British, Canadian and Australian (ABCA) forces as a force multiplier. The success that this type of marksman is achieving, on operations in Iraq and particularly in Afghanistan, is well documented. ACA forces have already deployed the role and developed equipment variants.
2. Our solution was to redefine the Light Support Weapon from a support weapon to the section designated marksman (SDM) role or to be known as the LSW Marksman.
3. The marksman plays a significant part on the modern battlefield and can be deployed by adapting an existing assault rifle variant to become a precision weapon supporting the section and improving its fighting effectiveness at longer ranges in both offensive and defensive scenarios.
4. The LSW marksman would be able to assist and support in some snipers tasks when required to do so, such as sniper / marksman overt overwatch and force protection duties.

5. The LSW marksman is an integral part of the section and serves first as a rifleman and, second, as a marksman. The LSW Marksman manoeuvres with his fire team and section.
6. The LSW marksman is not a specialist sniper who engages with close precision attack at longer ranges (800-1200m). Instead the LSW Marksman is trained to directly support the section with well aimed single shots at ranges beyond the ‘normal’ rifleman engagement distance of 300m. He fulfils that gap from 300m to 600m.
7. This ability can be used in both offensive and defensive roles, for example:
• Suppression of point targets through well-aimed single shots at longer ranges up to 600m.
• Precision attack of dismounted personnel targets between 300m and 600m.
• Engagement of enemy depth positions during assault phase.
• Accurate engagement of enemy counter-attack forces from 600m.
• Precision attack of enemy equipment from 300m to 600m.
• Providing mutual support with interlocking arcs of fire up to 600m apart during defence.
• During UO provide cover for the break-in and overwatch of secondary approaches.
• Suppress enemy in known or suspected positions in order to allow movement.
• Counter sniper attack and harassment.
Mounted Vehicle Top cover sentry to give precision fire with low risk to collateral damage.
8. The LSW marksman requires all the skills of a competent rifleman but at a slightly better standard.
• An understanding and mastery of the fundamental skills of marksmanship including elevation, wind, aiming off and range estimation skills.
• Competent marksmanship skills to deliver accurate single shots at targets up to 600m.
9. Both the US Army and the USMC Section Designated Marksman have adapted their standard assault rifle to include a longer (better quality) barrel, a more advanced sighting system and a precision trigger unit mechanism (designated M14 modified and M16A2E3).
10. The Canadian Section Designated Marksman programme uses an adapted C7 with an (enhanced) optical sight and bipod (designated C7CT).
11. The Australians employ an upgraded Steyr AUG with longer barrel and (enhanced) optical sight (designated Steyr AUS HBAR-T).
12. The ideal Section Designated Marksman weapon system should be compact enough for use at short range but also effective at long range (which in effect means using the same ammunition as the section LMG’s and Rifle’s). The ammunition will be powerful enough to reach out to long range, and to reliably inflict severe wounds at short range, plus be effective against both protected and unprotected personnel. On the other hand, it must be reasonably light and compact and generate controllable recoil.

13. The following is the doctrinal statement for the LSW Marksman.
• The primary mission of the LSW Marksman is to deploy as a member of the rifle section and is a vital member of the section fire team. He fires and manoeuvres with his section and performs all the duties of a rifleman.
• The secondary mission of the LSW Marksman is to engage targets out to 600m with effective well aimed single shots using the adapted weapon system and in service ammunition.
14. The LSW Marksman has neither the weapon, equipment nor the training to operate individually or in a pair to engage targets at extreme ranges with close precision attack and is not a sniper.
15. The LSW is no longer roled as a support weapon, that role having passed to the LMG.
16. The existing weapon system has been issued and used by the British Army for nearly 20 years, primarily in a suppressive fire mode in which role it has been found wanting for a variety of well documented reasons. It is unpopular with both soldiers and commanders and increasingly it is left in the armoury. Its use has probably been further compromised by inadequate training and the lack of development of effective weapon specific shooting techniques.
17. The adoption and fielding of the LMG has consigned the LSW, in its original configuration and role, to just another rifle and notably rarely considered during the combat estimate as a marksman or even a fire support weapon system.
18. Despite these drawbacks and its blemished history there is scope to reconsider ‘rebranding’ the weapon as the British equilivant SDM weapon of choice. There are a number of advantages, as follows:
• The LSW is available immediately as an issue weapon and, as such, is familiar to all infantry soldiers.
• REME have the experience and skills to maintain the weapon. Spares are readily available and are interchanged with the rifle.
• The LSW offers a lightweight magazine fed, self-loading weapon with bipod, buttstrap and pistol grip. All these features add to the stability and holding of the weapon system, thus improving the accuracy.
• The tapered front handguard will assist in holding and is easier to use.
• It has a longer (646mm) free floating barrel once the bullet as passed the gas block. Its improved muzzle velocity of 970m/s and increased weight compared to the other ACA weapon systems. All these features are required by a weapon system firing accurately at longer ranges.
• The present in-service ball round has a kinetic energy level of circa 230J at 600m, this is sufficient to defeat an unprotected dismounted personnel target. Although this is at the limit of a 5.56x45mm round.
• Its relatively light weight and manoeuvrability makes it perfect for other tasks such as the assault, fight through, fire support and in defence.
19. With these features the LSW has potential to be used in the marksman role particularly if modified and improved optical sight with x 5 or 6 magnifications are adequate for the ranges envisaged for this weapon up to 600m. SUSAT with limited 4 x magnification would not be appropriate in the marksman role.
20. An improved bipod to prevent lateral movement would greatly assist in stability when firing. Such as the Harris Bipod.
21. An improved trigger mechanism pull weight parameters from 3kg – 7kg to min pull 3kg to maximum 4 kg. This will improve the triggering operation for the marksman. Thus prevents disturbance of the final action of firing.
22. Improved 24hr capability by using thermal imager and IR tracer ammunition would be an advantage.
23. Additionally a small lightweight laser range finder would improve the soldiers’ ability to judge distance, therefore improving his ability to estimate range.

24. The LSW basic weapon handling lessons would need to be amended to explain and demonstrate the holding and aiming techniques required to shoot accurately at longer ranges.
• These would include the use of the bipod and sling to improve stability combined with optimum use of the rear pistol grip and butt strap using modified holding positions.
• Advanced marksmanship techniques including triggering, follow-through (recoil recovery and management) to deliver an accurate rapid second shot (double-tap) in single shot setting.
• Advanced wind knowledge skills at longer ranges.
• Advanced moving target skills at longer ranges.
• Use of the enhanced optical sighting unit with integral bullet drop compensator, to identified targets from non combatants, minimise collateral damage with rapid snap shooting in areas where targets are fleeting and only briefly exposed.
25. This combination of enhanced skills and equipment would increase 1st time hit probability firing aimed shots at all longer ranges.
26. The LFMT lessons as per AOSP do not currently extend beyond 600m. Doctrine clearly states ranges up to 600m. The infantry soldier must be able to fire accurately to kill or suppress an enemy to the limits of the battle range of his personal weapon as stated in the operational shooting requirement.
• Additional LF lessons should be added to teach the necessary skills.
27. The selection process for the LSW marksman role should identify soldiers with above average shooting ability with the capacity to learn and apply advanced marksmanship skills during basic weapon handling and live-fire training. LSW Marksman fire at longer ranges up to 600m is not magic, but it is a high demand / low density skill.
• Further selection could be achieved using DCCT analysis.
28. The basic LSW package at ITC Catterick would need only minor adjustments with recruits leaving ITC with the basic knowledge and skills having only completed the shoots up to Alternative Personal Weapons (AWA) standard.
29. Continuation training should comprise a combination of live and synthetic training methods. Additionally until sufficient ranges are available that allow firing back to 600m, the use of Field Firing Areas and portable AMS if available should be used.
• The more specific training being conducted at the unit by a bespoke LSW marksman package using unit instructors and a Distributed Training Cell package endorsed by HQ D Inf.
30. The LSW in its present configuration and roling has a poor reputation at all levels of command and has been replaced in its support capability by the LMG. Recent operations lesson learnt commented about the tactical employment of the LSW, in that commanders should consider using other weapon systems in place of the LSW.
31. The negative psychology surrounding the weapon would need to be addressed if it is redesignated and re-roled. This would best be achieved by a combination of specific training to role; use by firers with proven advanced marksmanship skills and minor modifications to the current weapon specification.
32. The positive attributes of this weapon in the marksman role would be demonstrated by conducting field trials against the ACA equipment indicated for the marksman role or publishing the competitive trials reports for accuracy and reliability conducted by ITDU during the introduction of the LMG, where the LSW competed against a number of other weapons systems. This hopefully would go a long way in improving the unfair and unfounded view that many commanders have of the LSW.
33. There are insufficient ranges that allow firing back to 600m. DTE would need to start to establish a works programme to upgrade existing ranges or build new ranges. This would also be the case as the improved sniper rifle come’s into service and the forming of infantry sniper platoons. The need to improve and provide this facility is key to the success of the marksman. This aspect must be included as a requirement of Small Arms Range Targets (SARTS) project.
34. In the Current Operating Environment precise and accurate fire is required at longer ranges, than can be delivered effectively by the current organisation and weapons systems. The need to minimise and prevent collateral damage and abide my restrictive RoE.
35. If we want to improve the capability of the infantry section, HQ INF should address the SDM initiative adopted by our ACA allies.
36. HQ Inf need to give a clear doctrinal requirement for LSW Marksman supported by an all inclusive training regime from basic lessons through to live firing and probably equally as important a internal publicity campaign to give confidence back to the user.
37. The LSW, with only minor modifications together with improved training and an improved optical sight, bipod and trigger spring, can provide a precision weapon for section commanders to use at longer ranges.
38. If the LSW marksman is not properly equipped, and trained the alternative is to remove the LSW from the orbat and replace it with an additional rifle and bayonet.

Similar threads

Latest Threads