05-09-2012, 10:40 AM
LRRPF52 Wrote:What I mean by that is that they found out early on with the L85 being the substandard weapon that it is, simply can't take the pressures of M193 or M855 loaded to the pressures that we're used to in the AR15 family, so the UK manufactures a lower power load, that supposedly only reaches between 2700 and 2800fps, even from the 20" L85. This was done to increase the service life of the weapons to an acceptable level. That's 100-200fps slower than a 14.5" M4 carbine.
I think this is an urban myth. I have heard many complaints about the SA80, but a weak action is not one of them. RG do make two lines of 5.56mm ammo, one for SA80 and one for AR-15, but the quoted muzzle velocities are identical. The difference is to do with the pressure characteristics, not the maximum pressure. Despite NATO "standardisation" it is clear that nations tend to fine-tune their ammo to perform best in their guns, and it may not work so well in other guns. This is revealed by a first-hand account I received from a soldier involved in testing the improved SA80A2, as follows:
"The trials were conducted using British ammo, but some German and American types were tried. It was found that the German ammo fouled the gas ports very quickly, whereas the US ammo sometimes didn't seem to produce enough pressure to cock the gun reliably, with a stoppage occurring once every one or two magazines."
Quote:Another statement we commonly hear about 5.56 is that it relies on yaw to cause the tissue damage that the Small Caliber High Velocity concept called for and delivered with the AR15. The tissue damage is really more of a factor of a thin jacketed projectile impacting at over 2600fps on the target. At those speeds, it doesn't really matter how a thin-jacketed, light bullet is oriented, because it will shed its jacket and come apart violently.
The main US criticism of the terminal effectiveness of 5.56mm M855 is that unless it is yawing by 3+ degrees on impact, it will not upset rapidly in a body but will punch a neat hole straight through. On testing in ballistic gel, it was found that 70% of bullets did not start to yaw until at least 4.7 inches after impact, and 15% didn't yaw at all.
Quote:When it comes to the individual service rifle, I think the UK made a huge and costly mistake that they're continuing to pay for to this day with the L85 fiasco, and the fact that the SAS & SBS use Colt Commando variants as their main service weapon screams volumes to that assertion.
Yes, they did indeed make a big mistake, although the A2 version of the gun is now reliable - rather more so than the M4, as shown not just by British tests. I was just reading some comments by experienced MARSOC NCOs who have returned from combat and are now involved in training, and they were critical of the M4's reliability in adverse conditions. The British should have adopted the Steyr AUG (as some of those involved at the time wanted, but nationalism won out).
As far as British special forces are concerned, there are several reasons why they didn't adopt the L85 (although they did acquire some L86A2). First, they were using members of the AR-15 family in the mid-1960s, 20 years before the SA80 was available, so they became totally familiar with the system. Second, the L85A1 was unreliable. Third, the L85A1 (and initially the L85A2 as well) had no provision for adding accessories - no P-rails etc. Fourth, even with the latest L85A2 fitted with P-rails, the ergonomics are poor and the gun is very heavy - not what the high-speed low-drag folks want.
Quote:I would like to see some citations for sources of complaints from British Infantry Units, to get a better idea if this is a solution looking for a problem, a widespread feeling among infantrymen, or a few anecdotal comments from guys looking to be important.
My colleague, a former infantry officer, interviewed several hundred British soldiers to discover their views about their small arms and ammunition. There was also a similar recent study (not publically available) by the Royal Marines. The conclusions are that the soldiers are primarily concerned about the lack of effective range of the 5.56mm (whatever it's fired in) and also by the lack of barrier penetration and unreliable terminal effectiveness. At least half the Marines said that if they had to choose between 5.56mm and 7.62mm rifles, they'd choose 7.62mm (although they'd prefer something in between).
Quote:If the UK does adopt a larger cartridge, the Bullpup will have to go, unless they find a reliable way to pack 30rds into a smaller space.
Why 30 rounds? 25 seems reasonable. However, since it is clear that the British are going to buy-in their next rifle, and are likely to favour something off-the-shelf from HK, FN or Colt, it will almost inevitably not be a bullpup (they don't like the control system of the FN F2000).
Quote:The LMT 7.62 MRP would be much better in Grendel, as would the LMG's.
Agreed!