New Weapon For British Army

Discussion in 'Postwar' started by CL1, Jan 8, 2010.

  1. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    The .303 and 7.62 NATO pound was very pointed and would pass through a body. The 5.56 round was designed for the American M16 Rifle and has a very flat rounded nose that makes it tumble through the air. The idea is it causes maximum damage to the person that it hits, and 5.56 is the standard round now for all NATO Forces and they all use the same size round.
    It is rather like the old Thompson Sub Machine Gun that fired rounds at a low velocity so that they would do more damage when they hit some one. The Germans at one time thought that Dum Dum bullets were being used as the damaged caused was so much worse than they expected.

    No it doesn't -Can I ask what your source of information is please?
  2. Jedburgh22

    Jedburgh22 Very Senior Member

    The early M16 rifles (Vietnam era) caused the rounds to tumble this was a design flaw which I believe was rectified in later models. The flaw was to do with the twist of the grooves in the barrel. The same timbling effect was noted on some cut-down short barrels SLRs and FN rifles in use by SF.
  3. Dave55

    Dave55 Atlanta, USA

    Hello Jedburg

    I'd polity disagree with the tumbling M-16 bullets. The early M-16 barrels had a twist rate that was not well suited to the shape, weight and velocity of the full metal jacket bullets used and accuracy was poor, but the bullets never tumbled.

  4. Jedburgh22

    Jedburgh22 Very Senior Member

    Hi Dave,
    The various AR15s and M16s have 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, & 1-14 twist rates, the bullet was also slightly unstable in early issue - it depended on which model was issued.
  5. red devil

    red devil Senior Member

    Having fired the SA80 at electronic targets, the velocity of the round was certainly not 'slow'. 500m meter range, fire, target hit, same 'instant'.
  6. John Lawson

    John Lawson Arte et Marte

    Having fired both the 7.62mm SLR and the 5.56mm SA 80 it's a morale thing. If I hit my target and his arm comes off, I'm happy, or I hit my target and I don't see any visible evidence of my strike doing something nasty, then I would feel a bit miffed and would feel that maybe I hadn't taken the target out and it may come back to bite me in the bum later.

    Skill at arms and Shoot to kill is what it's about. One round, one kill. Nobody can shoot to injure a bit or a bit more. I would rather carry 80 rounds and know what happens each shot, than 120 and not know.

    I believe in the Falklands the Mtn & Artic Warfare boys engaged some Argies, at Top Marlow Farm?, with 5.56 and two of the enemy remained standing, during their attack, returning fire after being hit several times. Not a great confidence booster for the shooter!

    Confidence in battle comes from killing the enemy, and knowing it (Not PC but there you have it!), not injuring him and taking out three others who have to look after him, several others in the hospital train, and the morale of the people back home! I'm not interested in this! I'm a bit sweaty and busy to consider the finer points at that moment in time.

    You're only interested in the here and now and not the semantics or interpretation of of some brain boxes theory, all an infanteer needs is the knowledge that he holds in his hands a instrument that will clear the way and not leave a surprise behind.

    Best thing about the SA 80 - the sling, think about it?

    Not quite on the subject, but after the SA 80 LSW (Light Support Weapon) was issued, which took the place of the GPMG in the rifle section, they had to reissue it as the LSW was, to put it quite mildly, - Shit!
  7. Capt.Sensible

    Capt.Sensible Well-Known Member

    I think the comments in this thread underline the fact that on the 21st century battlefield (however defined) there cannot be a 'standard' all purpose infantry weapon. That kind of thinking should perhaps have gone out with the Cold War. Modern FIBUA and what used to be called Low Intensity Operations will require relatively short automatic weapons using small-ish ammunition, whilst intense fire-fights over several hundred metres of sometimes open ground will require a heavier round from a more accurate but still automatic weapon. To put my comments in context, I have never been shot at in anger, I have used the 7.62mm SLR extensively, occasionally had a plink with an AR-15, never used the SA 80 (after my time) but was a big fan of the GPMG.

  8. leccy

    leccy Senior Member

    As a comparison of the effects of rounds we did a firepower demonstration in Sennelager around 85/86.

    Target consisted of a double cavity brick wall
    Weapons German G3, British SLR, American M16

    The G3 firing standard NATO 7.62mm round took 3 rounds to penetrate through the double cavity brick wall
    The SLR firing the same ammunition took 1 to penetrate through the wall
    The M16 firing standard NATO 5.56mm round took 7 rounds to penetrate the cavity wall.

    Was a little eye opener for those off to NI who had to think a bit more before firing in built up areas as the rounds would go straight though the house walls.

    With the common debate amongst us older soldiers (lol) on the merits etc of the SLR versus the SA80, for some jobs I preferred my Elephant gun (SLR) and others especially driving Armour I prefered my SA80, although not the first un-modified version I tried belonging to the RS in 1986, (the one where the mag fell off all the time and the selector and bolt hold open catch kept falling off). Prefered my LMG (Bren) at the time although I loved the LSW sight and the fact it was nearly 10lb lighter, despite the RS claiming I had stolen it from a museum (showed them the date stamp was 1943).

    A couple of years ago having had the chance to fire the SLR and SA80 side by side I had almost forgot the recoil (still less than the Lee Enfield No4 I fired when a cadet though). Was quite amusing seeing those who had only ever fired the SA80 complain of the bruising on their shoulders.
  9. Bradlad

    Bradlad Senior Member

    Having used the L96A1 and the SA80A1/A2 I can state both 5.56 and 7.62 have merit, the SA80 is wonderful for FIBUA and especially FISH due to the dimensions and weight, it was like carrying a toy, but anything over 500 yards was a waste of time and effort.
    The A1 was a pain in the backside, I actually had one eject it's gas chamber whist in use with the piston missing my right eye by millimetres, I still have the scar on my forehead.. once H&K got hold of it and came back with the A2 it was a completely different weapon.
    The idea behind the 5.56 is NATO standardisation on ammunition for a given weight, 62-63 grains is far easier to carry than the 150+ grain 7.62 with a gain in muzzle velocity from around 800mps to 900+ which gave the 5.56 good stopping power at close range, there is a theory that the smaller round was designed to wound rather than kill, therefore needing other combatants to remove the wounded from the field however in my experience this is backroom fantasy...
    Being honest I wouldn't fancy carrying a patrol worth of 7.62 rounds for an automatic in a theatre such as the Middle East, the kit required for basics is heavy enough without doubling the weight and size of rounds, along with the fatigue aspect of use.
    I am however a supporter of the GPMG and such using the 7.62, suppression weapons do need the range and power of the larger round, and there is no reason for a suppression team not to all use 7.62 AR's but it would be patently unfair on the field response units to carry them routinely.
  10. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

  11. red devil

    red devil Senior Member

    the SA80 is wonderful for FIBUA and especially FISH due to the dimensions and weight, it was like carrying a toy, but anything over 500 yards was a waste of time and effort.

    I fired the SA80 in N.Ireland at 500m at an electronic target. couldn't miss. The target was up and down like a fan dancers fan. Even the SSM asked if the taregt was bust!! Easy stuff. :lol:
  12. mapshooter

    mapshooter Senior Member

    A hundred years ago the Brtish Army realised that .303 was too large, by 1914 they were confident that they'd found the right one. Events intervened and it was deemed inappropriate to change calibres at that time. A century later and the army still doesn't have an appropriate calibre. Small arms aren't rocket science or even something moderately complicated like artillery.

    I carried a Sterling in my first war, until swapping it for a AR15, one member of my battery swore blind that he could see his 9mm rds bouncing of the webbing of an en marine in a close range fire fight. This raises another point, long range is the current vogue, but in some circumstances 50m is long range. During the cold war 300m was considered about the likely battle range, hence 5.56 was deemed OK.
  13. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

Share This Page