The SA80 A2 is “perfect” for the Army, but not Royal Marines

I am just going to post this link, without comment

Just for your amusement :)

[browser-shot width=”600″ url=”http://www.defenceiq.com/army-and-land-forces/articles/the-sa80-a2-is-perfect-for-the-army-but-not-royal/#joinPopup”]

 

62 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mr.fred
mr.fred
July 29, 2014 6:42 am

Didn’t something very like this pop up a few years back?
Was the HK 417 ever readily available as a sharpshooter rifle?
When were the Royal Marines last in Afghanistan anyway? More than a year, going by this report:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2013/april/09/130409-the-royal-marines-leave-afghanistan

I suspect that this is the usual high quality piece by DefenseIQ.

The Other Chris
July 29, 2014 8:11 am

From the TD archives link to “UK Royal Marines Call for Rifle Improvements”:

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/07/a-mid-life-colt-canada-c8-upgrade/

a
a
July 29, 2014 8:40 am

The SA80 A2 is “perfect” for the Army, but not Royal Marines

“…Bang Stick Has Too Many Buttons, Complain Confused Bootnecks.”

Obsvr
Obsvr
July 29, 2014 8:51 am

Confirm my long held believe that RM are not proper soldiers. Too much time in grey painted cans.

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural
July 29, 2014 9:38 am

“I’ve obviously seen a lot of pros and cons first hand. The 5.56 was really designed for the Cold War era – you know, don’t kill the guy instantly; injure him and force two more guys out of the battle to CASEVAC him. That doesn’t work in Afghanistan, not one bit.

Isn’t that old “designed to wound, not to kill” saw supposed to be bollocks? Military 5.56mm will reliably fragment and ruin your day, provided it’s still carrying enough energy when it hits. Which it will, when fired from a suitable barrel length and within the designed range, I.E. <300m. The fact that doesn't really relate to Afghanistan is a different matter…

I never realised the Bootnecks managed to get their hands on 417's. I knew they were floating around UKSF and SFSG etc. Wouldn't count on holding onto them now that sharpshooter is here. Booties have always seemed to have a sad on for bullpup rifles, I wonder if they've been listening to their American cousins and the USMC's efforts to sneak a new rifle (IAR) past the grown-ups?

The cousins are getting positive results from cased-telescopic rounds (LSAT), hopefully we can hold off an SA80 replacement until they perfect it. CT rounds in a new intermediate calibre would probably be enough of an improvement to justify a new weapon. Yanks have always managed to bully NATO into standardizing on what they want before!

Martin
Editor
July 29, 2014 9:45 am

I will take the SA80 over the any M4 variant at 100+ meters.

Its main drawback is that it is heavy but that comes in handy in the dark if you are trying to tw**t some one with it.

But it’s wicked accurate for a service riffle.

a lot of troops bitch about 5.56 but I am sure once they have to lug a bunch of 7.62 rounds up a mountain in Afghanistan they will miss it. Not to mention trying to shoot someone more than a couple of hundred meters away.

No riffle or round will ever present an optimum capability in all engagements but the SA80 A2 is a fairly good trade off and way better than the M4 for most stuff outside of policing.

There is a long list of crop kit in the Army and Marines that need replacing long before we look at the SA80.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
July 29, 2014 10:51 am
Chris.B.
Chris.B.
July 29, 2014 10:55 am

@ Slightly Agri,

“Isn’t that old “designed to wound, not to kill” saw supposed to be bollocks?”
— It is. Complete bollocks.

Martin
Editor
July 29, 2014 11:18 am

@ Chris B

Agreed a 5.56 will kill someone pretty well.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
July 29, 2014 11:32 am

Just to prove I was joking, I am the 4th guy from the right in the linked picture
http://www.teachersfirst.com/gettysburg/packs-tents.cfm

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
July 29, 2014 11:35 am

I thought the SA 80 was a piece of plastic shit when it first came out in the late 80s. Has it improved since then?

I always preferred 7.62 (and THAT rifle), but lately have been wondering about .243 for my deer ticket. Gratifying flat and lots of energy left even to 1,000 yards (not that I have ever taken a deer at over 250 yards, nor would trust myself at over 300. It’s a sentient being, and to be treated with respect).

Ace Rimmer
July 29, 2014 11:50 am

RT, my father has a Wetherby .243 with a polymer stock for stalking, absolutely swears by it. Will drop a large Red with no problem. I’ve handled it myself, nice and light and well balanced, even when its married to a large Schmidt & Bender scope. I was also surprised how much I liked the Mauser action, especially after growing up on the .303 Enfield No.4 as a cadet.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
July 29, 2014 11:51 am

Never had the luxury of shooting with one (my son may have had a piece in the Cadets, restricted to single shots), but that is neither here or there. Rather, after the HK make-over of the failed product, howmuchof the original is left?

BV Buster
BV Buster
July 29, 2014 11:54 am

Spam got me.

@ RT: it’s come on leaps and bounds from when it was first issued, I hear horror stories from the old and bold about mags falling off and furniture cracking. The LDS is a big improvement over SUSAT but would have preferred ACOG. H&K worked their magic on the working parts, my only gripe is the weight.

BV

Martin
Editor
July 29, 2014 12:20 pm

@ RT – The SA80 A1 was a terrible weapon but after H&k worked some magic on the A2 version its reliability was improved nearly 10 fold.

The weapon has always been highly accurate for a short rifle and with the improved reliability it’s been able to achieve much of its early promise.

I have no experience with the latest version with all the gangster grips and bolt on artillery but it looks cool. Still a bloody heavy weapon though for close quarters fighting or lugging about but guys I have spoken to that used it in the stan loved it because they could engage targets at ranges where the enemy thought they were safe and would have been from an M4.

The M4 is an awesome weapon but it’s very much designed by and for the under water knife fighter than the line infantry man and its shorter barrel reduces its range and accuracy although its way better than an SA80 for room clearing.

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural
July 29, 2014 12:25 pm

ACC – I didn’t think they’d changed all THAT much, but a quick bit of research shows the change list was a lot more extensive than I thought. Basically, almost everything that moves.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_SA80.html#4

And HK supposedly offered railed hanguards for a few £ a pop, which the MoD politely declined!

Never had to use an L85 anywhere remotely dangerous (unless you count battle lanes with some of my more…unreliable…comrades) but I never had a problem I couldn’t attribute to myself (badly-loaded blank mags mostly). I’m a complete mong, and I could reliably hit a fig. 11 at 400m with bipod grip & SUSAT (older than I was incidentally!). With all the new upgrades I never had the chance to try – flash hider, LLM, LDS, Pmags, spray paint, ancils etc. it looks like a totally new beast. Time to standardise on an ‘A3’ methinks. I also hear rumours of a new bayonet/fighting knife, which would be a welcome improvement.

Still an utter, utter bitch to clean though. I have scars on my little finger from trying to dig out that damn breech. Not designed for fat farmer hands like mine…

Fedaykin
July 29, 2014 12:34 pm

This looks like a rehash of some whining a few years back by both the Royal Marines and the Parachute regiment, they stated due to their “Elite” nature they should have a HK G36 variant.

i believe they were told to “Wind their necks in”.

Martin
Editor
July 29, 2014 1:20 pm

@ Fredaykin

Quite right too, bunch of premadonnas. :-)

as
as
July 29, 2014 1:51 pm

The SA80 apparently excelled in engagements that are for SMG type weapon so short range quick shot moving target in the village’s and towns in both afghan and Iraq. It is suppose to be able to be brought to bear on a target very quickly becomes it is short and the way the sights operate.

Ace Rimmer
July 29, 2014 2:40 pm

, Parachute Regiment, putting the ‘P’ in prima donna! ;)

BV Buster
BV Buster
July 29, 2014 4:07 pm

What I do like is the carbine, more of them please. Stick the red dot sight from the combat shotgun on it and I will be a happy bunny, a SUSAT is wasted on it, makes it too top heavy. Has an odd noise when it fires, could just be me tho.

Not heard anything about a new bayonet, think of all those poster , signs, TFRs and t shirts that would need to be changed because it has the old bayonet on.

Phil
July 29, 2014 6:49 pm

The holo red dot sights can take some getting used to.

If your weapon rattles take it to an armourer – it’s a 2 minute job to fix it.

I liked the weapon. The only thing that annoyed me about it is the way the new (ish) three point slings connect to it. It hangs down too low. But otherwise it was perfectly fine. Anyone who says it is heavy is very gay.

John Hartley
John Hartley
July 29, 2014 7:29 pm

Its a decade since I last fired 5.56 (in a M4) & those little rounds looked piddly to me ( I am used to .270 Winchester +7.62 & even some old .303). If NATO adopts a 6/6.25/6.5/6.8/7mm round, there will be a large cheer from me.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
July 29, 2014 7:40 pm

Re NATO Interoperability for small arms ammo (even big arms ammo).

Does it really matter in the Belgiques use 5.56, the Canadians 7.62, the Germans 6.25, or the Brits .243? I’ve never actually heard of loggies swapping ammo internationally, and certainly in my Squadron we had a mix of 9mm, 5.56 and 7.62, which the SQMS was perfectly happy to deal with, and it’s not like you are going to try to load 9mm into a Gimpy.

Same goes for the big stuff.

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 29, 2014 8:01 pm

NATO commonality for the larger stuff makes a certain amount of sense, as there are benefits to be reaped even if you aren’t swapping shells. Being part of a large market means that you get the benefit of a wide range of competing developments, and should you develop a round of your own you stand a chance of selling it on the open market.
Small calibre stuff – it’s just bullets. Beyond a few specialist rounds, it’s all much of a muchness.

Jeremy M H
July 29, 2014 8:13 pm

@RT

It probably doesn’t matter much now when accounting would take precedence over a lot of things in battles that are not critical to any nations ultimate fate. I would imagine that interoperability was very important for what NATO was originally formed to try to deal with. Particularly given the drastically different quantity of on hand war supplies in terms of days of consumables that each nation of NATO had. Some like the US, UK and Germany had lots of stores on hand. Others I have seen reported as having as little as 7 days of combat worth of ordinance.

I agree it is something we could ditch now. The main purpose it really serves is probably to hold cost down for most nations when they buy ordinance as they can threaten to just buy it from any number of suppliers worldwide. If one ends up the only buyer of a caliber you could see your cost escalate pretty quickly.

TrT
TrT
July 29, 2014 9:24 pm

How many 5.56 rounds are in Army/RN/RAF/MoD stocks and usable right now?
The rifles are designed to fire 120 rpd and the LMG 800rpd (Wikipedia Warrior)
That gives a 4 man section an ammunition need of 1160 rounds per day

Or a 692 strong commando a DAILY ammunition need of over 800,000 rounds
5,619,040 for a single battalion for a single week.

Which takes us back to question one, how many rounds does the UK hold in store?
Enough to equip a dozen infantry battalions for a month long conflict? Or enough to issue five rounds of ammunition and best wishes to men about to cross the border?

There are 17 infantry battalions
Thats over 400mn bullets for a month long war.

Speculation follows
The US, via NATO, maintains vast (relatively) stocks of war material that it can turn over to allies in the event TSHTF and frequently denies use thereof when it wants it, or said allies are going off message.

Moving to a UK specific weapon is fine, but we’ll need to stockpile a billion rounds of this unique calibre and should be expected to fire (shakey on this number) about a tenth of that per year to, within a variety of levels, train the forces.

Even at an additional cost of 10p per bullet, thats a one off cost of £100mn and and additional £10mn per year
Not pocket change. Plus storage costs

Given the benefits are pretty hard to quantify, D with a C did an excellent post recently on the small arms research that shows that most GSDs are essentially accidental, and well, its a lot for not a lot.

John Hartley
John Hartley
July 29, 2014 9:59 pm

I would not want a British unique calibre, but I would urge NATO to adopt a common intermediate round.
By the way, I hear SWAT teams have had some devastating one shot stops with their 5.56mm, but that was with expanding ammo.

Observer
Observer
July 29, 2014 10:12 pm

TrT, I think the 120 rounds per is not “per day”, IIRC it was described to me as “one contact”, i.e a single fight. An intense continuous fight will drain a lot more than 120 rounds per day. It sort of stuck in my head because of the ridiculous statement that our “180 rounds is a 1.25 contact rate”, which leads to the obvious question of how do you get 0.25 of a contact.

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 30, 2014 6:20 am

TrT,
Since any introduction of a new calibre will not be instantaneous, there is the ability to phase in the new round more gradually while phasing out the older round(s)
Since you would never expect all 17 battalions to be in contact simultaneously, nor in contact every day for a month without incurring casualties, your numbers err to the conservative. That said, 10p/round is probably on the low side, so that may even out.
You would be able to use the legacy round preferentially for basic training purposes and there will still be plenty of people still using the older round(s) for you to sell/donate the surplus to. You could probably do quite well selling into the US civilian market at the moment.

Ace Rimmer
July 30, 2014 7:28 am

When I first signed the dotted line, it was SLR’s and SMG’s, personally I’d be happy to go with a two-tier rifle system and allow the soldier to choose 5.56 or 7.62 depending on his personal choice. L129A1 or M4 equivalent with a long or carbine length barrel, with a ‘take your pick’ then and don’t complain policy.

Chuck
Chuck
July 30, 2014 8:48 am

Interesting thought rimmer, don’t entirely disagree, though I’ve always thought we should have 3 standard weapons. Right tool for the job, type of deal. Out in the mountains of Afghan or the desert of Africa I’d want 7.62 or maybe even .338 LM or similar and really good long barrel semi-auto capability, even at the expense of full auto. Peacekeeping or strolling round this years violent urban sprawl of choice with a beret on, maybe MP7 or P90(L22A2’s going to be easiest logistically though) and of course keeping something inbetween as the main rifle; L85.

Some caveat’s of course, you can’t go lugging loads of different calibres around on a patrol and someone’s still going to have to lug an LMG and 40mm most of the time(everything but the most peaceful of peacekeeping), but adding a few thousand rifles above and below the main calibre seems like it would have a good utility and return on investment. An investment that’s going to be a drop in the bucket military procurement wise.

Maybe barrel lengths are a more sensible middle ground, but it worries me that the LSW wasn’t really considered up to snuff on this front and already about as long as you want a barrel, ergonomically and ballistics wise(over 110 calibre length, can’t get much longer without headaches). I think to make the barrel length the answer for all 3 scenario’s you’re going to need to standardise on 7.62 again or whatever it’s NATO replacement for 7.62 ends up being.

If Israel weren’t politically tenuous I’d say buy the TAR-21 in 7.62 and a selection of barrel lengths from 12″ to 24″.

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural
July 30, 2014 10:55 am

Small arms ammunition is made by BAE under the MASS contract, with a capacity for something like 1 million rounds per day + surge capacity. With war stocks I don’t think we’d run out too quickly at that rate.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/MASS-for-Effect-The-UKs-Long-Term-Ammo-Contract-05047/
£0.70 per round was bandied around when I was expending 5.56mm at the taxpayers expense, not sure how accurate that is, or if it includes logistics costs etc. as it seems rather high…

Interesting that people are (somewhat) agreeing on the need for different calibres or barrel lengths. Very much the same principle as the SCAR family – same ergonomics across the range, very different performance. I suppose you run into the same problems though – SCAR H is only ~90g heavier than SCAR L, and is a bit too light a weapon for the calibre. Always going to be a compromise if you’re sharing the same body.

Being able to swap barrels at the unit armourer level would also be an interesting new capability. Going to the desert? Greater mix of long barrels in the section for you, sunshine. Headed for some 3rd-world slum s***hole? Shorter lengths all round. Not going to be hot-swapping on a daily basis, but it would give some flexibility. Plus you don’t end up with a situation where an L22 is a totally different item to an L85. If the Marines want to be ally and run around with short barrels everywhere, then that’s up to their CoC! :p

Points for thought for any replacement. I think we’re in a pretty good place actually – we can run our current family on for a good while yet until some of this new technology is maybe ready. The French are having to change now, and if LSAT comes along in ~10 years then they’ll be stuck behind the curve. I suspect the Americans will do the same; they’ve finally twigged that they’re broke and it will probably take a big increase in performance before they splash the huge amount of cash required to change. Hence LSAT Cased-telescopic and Caseless rounds research (yes, I am very excited by it).

Chuck
Chuck
July 30, 2014 11:12 am

If 70p a round doesn’t include logistics we should be firing them at BAE. :P

Agreed. I think we’ll end up with caseless telescoped rounds eventually. Just a matter of investment to the get the chemistry just so and work out the niggles at this point IMO.

Probably in a package that looks very P90 if I had to guess. Always figured the top mounted mag would work very well if you had no brass to dispose of and a stubbier round(probably cram a load of them on there too). Also leaves a space in the buttstock for the stack of batteries to run the ever increasing number of leccy gizmos that will be bolted to it and the soldier. Maybe some piezo’s to charge them with the recoil too.

The Other Chris
July 30, 2014 11:31 am

Here’s hoping the 40mm CTC proves a success and can inform us on the use of cased telescopic ammunition in other areas as well:

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/07/40mm-cased-telescopic-cannon-goes-production/

From TD’s archives I found this discussion in particular on LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technology) good related reading:

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/11/usa-force-rest-nato-change-calibres/

DomS
DomS
July 30, 2014 5:08 pm

Minor point but I think the author is confusing Marines with SFSG. Marines do ‘conventional’ light infantry work too right?

wf
wf
July 30, 2014 5:19 pm

: the RM contribute a company to SFSG, which may explain things

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 30, 2014 5:43 pm

The Other Chris,
Success or failure, the CT40 will inform as to the suitability of CT ammunition.

DomS
DomS
July 30, 2014 6:49 pm

Thanks, I thought that was the case. But the article makes it sound like all Marines need a different rifle.

Phil
July 30, 2014 7:24 pm

Thats over 400mn bullets for a month long war.

That’s well above even total US monthly ammo consumption in 1944/45 which should tell you there’s something wrong with your assumptions.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
July 30, 2014 8:13 pm

Can’t find the context for the 400 mn for a mth (was not attributed), but a normal US production would take you thru the first 3 months
… If you happen to be the USA

monkey
monkey
July 30, 2014 9:33 pm

The US relies on 1 plant for it nitrocellulouse production and 1 plant for it small arms ammunition supply? OMG

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
July 30, 2014 9:58 pm

The article is dated 2010… but what do we do (MASS contract)?

I was more looking at the three different scenarios, and the number of expended rounds

“This chart shows the total small-arms ammunition required by the Army for three existing and possible situations: for peacetime operations and training after the Cold War” CAN’T PASTE IT HERE, but in short
– 0.7 bn rounds across calibers;
– as opposed to that number (before the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001) during fiscal year 2005 the number rose to 1.7 bn (2007 was the peak, I believe)
– but during the “total war” scenario of World War II nearly 22 bn rounds per year were expended… cfr 12 x 400 mn being in excess of that quoted number?? NOT. I think the three guys who wrote the article have done their research

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
July 30, 2014 10:20 pm

Sod the ammo weight calcs vs range/hitting power (had to do enough of them in the past on a directed paper for a GPMG replacement option).

Can you reliably batter the enemy to death with the butt end? It’s the only measure of performance that matters.

Kent
Kent
July 30, 2014 10:52 pm

@monkey – “OMG”

From the article: “…; any production shortfalls at Lake City are outsourced to private companies within the United States.”

Winchester, Federal, Hornady, and Remington all make milspec ammo. They also have the capability to quickly turn almost all their sporting ammunition capacity to military ammunition. (I have several “boxes” of 5.56x45mm M885 62 grain “Green Tip” ammunition manufactured by Winchester in my stores.) On the other hand, in 1982 I was issued .50 BMG 4/1 API/API-T manufactured by Lake City with headstamps indicating that they were made in 1944. They worked just fine.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
July 30, 2014 11:45 pm

Kent,

In the run up to GW1, we were issued with some 9mm Parabellum from some civvy company, Italian. It didn’t seem to shoot very well, and was unknown to us as normally we got our 9mm in brown boxes. Anyway, the boys were chomping about it, and I thought it a bit of a morale issue, and thought I’d better do something.

I found a loggie company that I thought were third line support, and arranged a big ammo swap, we got normal brown boxes, they got about 10,000 rounds back that were broken down and loose, but I’d sweetened that with 100 camp beds that the USMC had given us (we only needed 100, but naturally I had asked for 200 in discussions, and the figure was not questioned and stayed there, so we had Buckshees).

Observer
Observer
July 31, 2014 7:00 am

“a directed paper for a GPMG replacement option”

Amazing how no one ever asks for a replacement for the Gimpy/M-60. Guess it just happens to be in the zone where firepower, weight and reliability meets.

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 31, 2014 7:02 am

Observer,
Apart from where the US replaced the M60 with the FN MAG?

Observer
Observer
July 31, 2014 11:30 am

mr fred, my bad, typo, I meant the M-240. The FN MAG/GPMG (gimpy) does seem to have found a niche that it settled in fairly well.

TrT
TrT
August 3, 2014 2:30 pm

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm
“Q Why wasn’t the SA80 reliable when it was introduced?

A When the SA80 was accepted into service the stated battlefield mission, which determined the characteristics of the weapon, was for the rifle to fire 120 rounds over a 24 hour period. The LSW had to fire 800 rounds in 24 hours.”

So, if we take a 4man section with 3x rifles and 1x LSW that gives (120×3)+800
1,160

A “Commando 21” battalion is 672 all ranks.
Its not the case, but if we work them all on 4man teams as above, that gives us 168 LSWs and 504 rifles
A daily ammunition usage of 194,880 rounds

Not 800,000 as I stated, I worked out fire team and then used that as per man, my bad.

Even so, thats 100mn for a month long war, minus casualties.

Maybe an all out Russian invasion wouldnt last that long
Maybe we wouldnt deploy 17 battalions

Maybe it would, we would, and we’d be in doo doo

Its a pretty simple
What do you want to deploy, how long do you want to deploy it, and how many bullets do you expect them to fire per day

You can fudge the supplies if you have production capacity (assuming that isnt bombed), or you can buy on the open market, which assumes other people use your calibre of have the tooling to make it quickly.
5.56 is a popular civilian caliber and has lots of users and manufacturers, would a bespoke UK round? Maybe, maybe not.

Phil
“That’s well above even total US monthly ammo consumption in 1944/45 which should tell you there’s something wrong with your assumptions.”
Not really, the weight of artillery and bombs fired/dropped escalated wildly before / during / after the first and second world wars and Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

If you have other numbers to plug in to expected daily usage, expected daily users and expected days use by all means present them. Its really not that complicated.

John Hartley
John Hartley
August 19, 2014 8:24 pm

Over at tactical-life.com there is an article on the next 20 combat rifles/carbines. There seems to be a trend towards the punch of the 7.62×51, but in the lightest rifle. 3 mentioned are the DPMS GII Recon at 8.5 pounds, the FN Scar 17S at 8 pounds & finally the bullpup Kel-tec RFB at 8.1 pounds.

Phil
August 19, 2014 8:28 pm

What “punch” does a 7.62 rifle have? Why even consider a rifle that matches a requirement that is solely imaginary.

John Hartley
John Hartley
August 19, 2014 9:11 pm

Phil. If you are happy with 5,56 then that is your choice. Many are not though. These manufacturers would not be going back to making 7.62 rifles if there were no customers for them.

Chris.B.
Chris.B.
August 19, 2014 9:28 pm

“Many are not though”

— Trouble is those “many” are actually a minority, and most of them are US civilian gun owners, not the actual soldiers.

Phil
August 19, 2014 9:29 pm

Doesn’t stop the customers from acting more out of superstition and dull thinking than evidence though. Spending extra money on changing calibre is a mugs game. Changing to 7.62 is even more of a mugs game.

Observer
Observer
August 19, 2014 9:39 pm

JH, regarding “going back”, I think 7.62 never really left. We have been going over this for quite a while, they have their good points and so do 5.56.

I’ve only seen one 5.56 wound on a human being and it looked very ugly, a palm sized chunk of flesh was torn out leaving a crater about 5 cm deep at the deepest point. If that was representative, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the 5.56 lacks “punch”. Having palm sized chunks of flesh ripped from your back isn’t healthy.

Most of the return in interest to 7.62 involves accuracy at range more than lethality. People are taking potshots at the extreme ranges of ARs and running off, so there is an interest in DMRs or basically baby sniper rifles, not general purpose assault rifles.

John Hartley
John Hartley
August 19, 2014 10:06 pm

I was just trying to alert the TD followers of the trend, not start the whole calibre debate again. Condensing history, the 5.56 made sense to the Americans in the short ranges of jungle warfare. Likewise the British army in Belfast wanted something safer to use in city streets & more wieldable inside a building. The 5.56 was fine for those roles. Then came the open mountainsides of Afghanistan & the desert of Iraq where ranges were greater. Hence the trend back to 7.62. Also the IRA would seek treatment if shot, whereas Islamic suicide bombers are more dangerous targets & need to be stopped quicker.

Observer
Observer
August 19, 2014 10:28 pm

JH, is a one shot campaign the start of a “trend” or “theatre specific”? And I do have to point out that 7.62s are being obtained not as general purpose assault rifles but baby sniper rifles/DMRs. Their usage is different. There is no trend. It is an isolated situation specific to the terrain in Afghanistan.

Ian
Ian
October 15, 2014 11:39 am

Time we adopted the British .280 round, would have happened years ago if it wasn’t for the Septics

matty
matty
March 10, 2015 7:26 pm

Why can’t we find the money to equip all our bootnecks with c8 carbines and not just sf