"New" SLR for the British Army

[opticron1]

Having used a .303 on the range and for parade ground stuff......my , it was such a joy when we were allowed to use the SLR on the range - much more pleasant to use and I believe there were certain regiments that continued to use the SLR for a good while after the SA 80 was forced on the UK forces - felt it delivered more of an effective blow so to speak! I'm surprised the 6.5 creedmor doesn't get used for forces purposes as it seems to tick every box for accuracy and power......

 

[saddler]

L1A1 it is't but good old 7.62 that'll feck em every time . but as we are led by yanks by nose I recon it will be the 6.8 on a AR platform

Nice little round the 6.8 - at least mine performs without any issues
The new US issue design looks to be based around the 6.8 bullet, but a heavier on than is standard in the 6.8SPC models.
It's polymer case is very interesting - almost zero heat transfer from the cartridge on firing - so much so that I saw a clip of someone firing an extended burst on full auto, then rest his hand on the barrel chamber...it was cold. Another advantage of the zero heat loss is that less energy is lost, so they are getting the same velocity with a lower powder charge.

The best option would have bene the small-arms series that replaced the No.4 Lee Enfield, until Churchill decided it was not to be & withdrew it, the Rifle No.9 in .280"
It was also given short shrift by the septics at Aberdeen Proving Ground, as they needed to maintain a .30-cal rifle design, for reasons; a design that lasted less than a decade before the 5.56 came into issue = and THAT is another story, if you've seen the recently released Eugene Stoner interviews on YouTube, as the Aberdeen Proving Ground were messing him around to a huge degree as well.

 

[Twodogs]

It's not just the range firefights are conducted at but the effective use at that range against the many modern body armours.

 

[Ratel]

The next one will likely be in 6.5cm bullpup made by Blaser.

The only trouble with a calibre of 6.5cm is the recoil, 2.56" is some rifle. Rather you than me.

 

[Ratel]

Say what you like the old SMLE beats them all for me. Hated the new ones, not comfortable at all.

 

[long_range_rob]

Do I remember stories in Afghanistan of insurgents starting to take pot shots at British troops with old and venerable .303s and the soldiers having problems returning effective fire because their 5.56 rounds didn't have the range? Or is this an apocryphal story? Whatever they go for next, I guess it needs to be able to do service as a battle rifle and include the ability to shoot at distance.

I also recall that one of the reasons for the smaller round was that injuring an enemy effectively takes that person out of contention and one or two others to see to him. Except the likes of the Taliban didn't stop to take care of their wounded and of course an injured enemy remains a potential threat, so British troops were asking for something with a bit more clout. Again, so I've been told.

(A little information can be a dangerous thing).

That’s why they started issuing the Sharpshooter Rifle or AR10 to us.

 

[Rewulf]

The only trouble with a calibre of 6.5cm is the recoil, 2.56" is some rifle. Rather you than me.

That's why the newer, concept rifles chambered in 6.5 or 6.8 sport mini moderators.
It's quite surprising how much a good mod or muzzle break evens out the recoil on this calibre.

 

[Laurie]

The best option would have bene the small-arms series that replaced the No.4 Lee Enfield, until Churchill decided it was not to be & withdrew it, the Rifle No.9 in .280"

The immediate British post-war British Ideal Calibre Panel recommendations were actually for a 270, ie 6.8mm, initially for the yet to be designed new-generation assault rifle. The 7X49mm (280 British aka 280/30) followed later partly to try and meet the 30-calibre obsessed Americans half way, unsuccessfully of course, and also because FN had come up with a very ballistically effective 139 or 140gn FMJBT bullet for a small seven. It's only taken the Americans 70 years to catch up with where we were c. 1950!

In reality, with US forces only recently reequipped with 5.56 M4s at staggering cost, the need to stay with the AR platform will continue to hamstring any replacement's design envelope to such an extent that this can will likely continue to be kicked down the road indefinitely. Even barrel / bolt / magazine changes to existing rifles / carbines will add up to huge expenditures across NATO. Then, as @MarinePMI points out there is the continuously evolving body armour penetration issue. Consultants will be kept in gainful and very profitable employment forever with these projects! I expect the L85, L7 GPMG, and M2 50-cal HMG to carry on a lot, lot longer as the MoD will rightly decline to commit to complete reequipment until the cartridge issue is finally settled. Modern SLR in prospect? - Phooey, in retro-fantasists' dreams only!

 

[Foxyboy43]

Interesting thread. Last I heard on body armour was that NATO was in a flap because the new russian gear was stopping the 5.56 and a number of leading manufacturers had been tasked with coming up with something that would penetrate it. The supposed favourite round was a hyper-velocity .17 - not much longer than an hmr - or so the story goes…….

 

[bluesako]

cheaper to get a boatload of ak.s from china bs

 

[Pedro]

Having used a .303 on the range and for parade ground stuff......my , it was such a joy when we were allowed to use the SLR on the range - much more pleasant to use and I believe there were certain regiments that continued to use the SLR for a good while after the SA 80 was forced on the UK forces - felt it delivered more of an effective blow so to speak! I'm surprised the 6.5 creedmor doesn't get used for forces purposes as it seems to tick every box for accuracy and power......

Yep, the .303 has a wee kick, but not something you don't get used to. But it had it's uses, volley fire over the horizon for example (can't think they'd allow that now though) and the ability to work even with a mucked up action. It was also pretty effective as an automatic, as in the Bren gun, which even today would be no damp squib. The Lee Enfield (in different manifestations over it's life) was the longest lasting military issue rifle (I think, although the AK47 might be getting there sometime) but it's well old technology now. Although they could have done worse than keeping that as a starting point to develop more modern rifles (which I guess they did, simply speaking with 7.62 variants, that you could argue were rimless .303s).

Interesting thread indeed. Maybe a delegation from SD is needed to advise the development of small arms for the military. Anyway, so long as we can ensure manufacturing supplies in the UK, why do we really have to stick with a NATO (AKA US) specification?

 

[User00040]

The rationale at the time when asked “why not just buy M16’s or similar” was that we needed total control over the supply chain of our key arms. Completely agree with the sentiment, but where are we getting the raw materials to make our own rifles? Off the shelf next time, there are plenty of great options out there.

Hmmm... and H&K was called in to rectify all the design flaws.

Bet it caused a few laughs in the break room, 'We would have won the war if the Allies used these!'

 

[Longstrider]

It was all so much less complicated in my day ...

 

[paul o']

Nice little round the 6.8 - at least mine performs without any issues
The new US issue design looks to be based around the 6.8 bullet, but a heavier on than is standard in the 6.8SPC models.
It's polymer case is very interesting - almost zero heat transfer from the cartridge on firing - so much so that I saw a clip of someone firing an extended burst on full auto, then rest his hand on the barrel chamber...it was cold. Another advantage of the zero heat loss is that less energy is lost, so they are getting the same velocity with a lower powder charge.

The best option would have bene the small-arms series that replaced the No.4 Lee Enfield, until Churchill decided it was not to be & withdrew it, the Rifle No.9 in .280"
It was also given short shrift by the septics at Aberdeen Proving Ground, as they needed to maintain a .30-cal rifle design, for reasons; a design that lasted less than a decade before the 5.56 came into issue = and THAT is another story, if you've seen the recently released Eugene Stoner interviews on YouTube, as the Aberdeen Proving Ground were messing him around to a huge degree as well.

I met Eugene and much was said about the ss109 and that led to McNamara and the gang of kids that mucked up the M16 both cheapening the design and not including chrome barrel and using the wrong powder .The cost of men was disgusting to save a few $$$$
My shooting partner was part of the SA80 inspection team that said this is crap I'v got one of the first drill test rounds ! pmls . Big 7mm would be nice but as said we will follow the bear ! as you can't have loads of odd cals on the same side as it becomes unserviceable when they need a drop replen.

 

[Lone wolf]

The SA80 is getting quite a roasting in this thread isn't it!

My 2 pence worth

I have shot thousands upon thousands of round through both the A1 and A2 versions of the SA80 and I can honestly say its not as bad as the rumour mill make out

yes there may be better service rifles out there but it's not that bad

If you clean and maintain they run well.

The A2 was better with the new mags and gas parts that seemed to sort things out

Sure we would all like a but more stopping power but in the real world a 5.56m to the chest is bad news for the recipient.

I'd rather carry more 5.56mm than less 7.62mm as you can burn through ammo really quickly and when there is no resupply it's nice to know you have that. Bit extra.

A lot of talk about Afghanistan and he long range pot shots which did happen(a great excuse to call in some artillery or mortars)

but just look at the close quarter fighting in Iraq and urban engagements, the SA80 came into it's own here with its bullpup design.

Infantry sections are now able to cover all bases with rifleman,sharpshooters, light machine guns, underslung grenade launchers all at there disposal and the ability to call in fast air or indirect fire from mortars or artillery.

It will be interesting to see what route the British Army goes down.

 

[I. Farticus]

That's why the newer, concept rifles chambered in 6.5 or 6.8 sport mini moderators.
It's quite surprising how much a good mod or muzzle break evens out the recoil on this calibre.

cm...

 

[Ratel]

That's why the newer, concept rifles chambered in 6.5 or 6.8 sport mini moderators.
It's quite surprising how much a good mod or muzzle break evens out the recoil on this calibre.

Still wouldn't stop recoil in a 6.5CM round.

 

[Laurie]

Still wouldn't stop recoil in a 6.5CM round.

I suggest you beg, borrow, or steal the chance to shoot a 6.5mm Grendel rifle. Originally designed by Bill Alexander as a 5.56 replacement that fits the AR-15 platform, it far outperforms the 5.56 and in terms of ballistic performance and retained terminal energy at 800 yards and beyond. It also outperforms that of the 7.62 NATO ball rounds in MG use. That's outside of improved long-range precision and reduced windage too. Recoil is hardly an issue with a 6.5 like this even in the much lighter Howa 'Mini' or Cz527. (Not that I would describe the 6.5 Creedmoor as a heavy recoil number anyway!)

There is to be realistic NO CHANCE of the 6.5 Creedmoor or similar being adopted as the NATO standard smallarms cartridge, or at least not unless the West faces an existential threat that involves a return to a traditional large numbers infantry war. Use of the Creedmoor or something similar as a 7.62 replacement in 'marksman' and sniper rifles, yes; even possibly for machine-gun use, but such cartridges require entire replacement of literally millions strong 5.56 rifle inventories.

 

[paul o']

See the frogs have gone over to the HK416F another clone AR platform .

 

[Ratel]

I suggest you beg, borrow, or steal the chance to shoot a 6.5mm Grendel rifle. Originally designed by Bill Alexander as a 5.56 replacement that fits the AR-15 platform, it far outperforms the 5.56 and in terms of ballistic performance and retained terminal energy at 800 yards and beyond. It also outperforms that of the 7.62 NATO ball rounds in MG use. That's outside of improved long-range precision and reduced windage too. Recoil is hardly an issue with a 6.5 like this even in the much lighter Howa 'Mini' or Cz527. (Not that I would describe the 6.5 Creedmoor as a heavy recoil number anyway!)

There is to be realistic NO CHANCE of the 6.5 Creedmoor or similar being adopted as the NATO standard smallarms cartridge, or at least not unless the West faces an existential threat that involves a return to a traditional large numbers infantry war. Use of the Creedmoor or something similar as a 7.62 replacement in 'marksman' and sniper rifles, yes; even possibly for machine-gun use, but such cartridges require entire replacement of literally millions strong 5.56 rifle inventories.

Laurie dear boy, look at the calibre that was in that post and I keep referring to.
NOT 6.5mm IT WAS 6.5cm approx 2.56INCHES.
I have used and owned 6.5 x55 and still have a 6.5x54 but they are 6.5 mm not 6.5CM. The recoil is quite manageable in my rifle but a 2.56" bore would be horrendous. Suggest you try a 50cal and then multiply that dia X 5, probably a little like the pom, pom anti aircraft weapon.