Knight's Stoner 1 (KS-1) - New Rifle for British Army

[Dave_45]

Hmmm. So what about all the reports saying that the Yanks were concerned that the new Russian body armour will stop the 5.56 so were going up in chambering then?
Maybe someone should tell the MoD?

Same as vehicle armour, we upgrade the armour at a cost of millions.

Opposing forces add a few more KG of bang at a cost of 100 quid.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Same as vehicle armour, we upgrade the armour at a cost of millions.

Opposing forces add a few more KG of bang at a cost of 100 quid.

Ever thus.
I recall seeing some GIs telling the story of being pinned down in Afghanistan by long distance rifle fire. Their 5.56s were ineffective in reply, later intel revealed that the enemy were using Mosin Nagants in 7.62x54R - probably in excess of 60 years old! Seems like learning in the military is a commodity much sought after but rarely found….

 

[Twodogs]

Typical MOD

Approached H&K to sort out the SA80, H&K told them with the money they were willing to pay they could pick any one of the platforms off the shelf ,but the mod insisted on polishing a turd.

To be fair H&K made the rifle into a reliable system that was since proven in combat.

It was still a polished turd albeit reliable.

And now that time has elapsed they do what they should have done the first time round.


Not at all surprised

First time around had they done it properly they would have adopted the EM -2, well they did briefly until politics got in the way. Of course the Americans were never going to adopt a British designed weapon.

 

[User00040]

10k is a small batch by military standards, KAC needs to keep the price up to absorb costs in R&D etc.

Actual rifle including sights, mags, mod etc. is more likely about half that figure maybe bit more. Rest is (or should be) spare parts, armorers' training, setting up the logistics chain... and there could be some wiggling room. They can always spend less, but spending more causes trouble.

Should have just bought the HK416 like the Royal Marines did, but no, another taxpayer money bonfire (I think the MOD came out with their own spec and invited bids, Glock put in an AR15 style rifle which did the rounds on the internet).

I do wonder what 'R&D' is involved in producing a rifle based on the AR15 platform which has become pretty much standardised since the 1960's/70's, with the brunt of development already being done by extensive US Army tests (barrel twists, monolithic rails, SOPMOD kits, MK12 Special Purpose Rifle etc)

 

[jcalleja91]

Should have just bought the HK416 like the Royal Marines did, but no, another taxpayer money bonfire (I think the MOD came out with their own spec and invited bids, Glock put in an AR15 style rifle which did the rounds on the internet).

I do wonder what 'R&D' is involved in producing a rifle based on the AR15 platform which has become pretty much standardised since the 1960's/70's, with the brunt of development already being done by extensive US Army tests (barrel twists, monolithic rails, SOPMOD kits, MK12 Special Purpose Rifle etc)

RM didn't buy the 416? They've been using the C8 aka L119A2 in increasing numbers recently but not the 416 to my knowledge.. im sure those with pixilated faces have access to them if they wanted though.

The bidders are all included on the video I shared earlier including the HK416, Stoner, Sig Spear (but in 5.56mm not .277 Fury).. think there was a Daniel Defence as well and another.

 

[LeftHandGuy]

First time around had they done it properly they would have adopted the EM -2, well they did briefly until politics got in the way. Of course the Americans were never going to adopt a British designed weapon.

The EM-2 was still a bullpup, and frankly there just isn't a good enough reason to justify them. Perfect illustration of a solution in search of a problem.

Should have just bought the HK416 like the Royal Marines did, but no, another taxpayer money bonfire (I think the MOD came out with their own spec and invited bids, Glock put in an AR15 style rifle which did the rounds on the internet).

That would have been fine too (although I suspect you mean US Marines not Royal?). I expect there wasn't enough of a price difference in it - and I'm not convinced a piston AR is in practice better than direct impingement AR. Both are extremely reliable when well made and maintained.

There may have been a slice of politics in it - buying an American product rather than a European one?

Hell - it might even be that the KS-1 actually did demonstrably better in the trials. I'd love to know.

 

[Dave_45]

RM didn't buy the 416? They've been using the C8 aka L119A2 in increasing numbers recently but not the 416 to my knowledge.. im sure those with pixilated faces have access to them if they wanted though.

The bidders are all included on the video I shared earlier including the HK416, Stoner, Sig Spear (but in 5.56mm not .277 Fury).. think there was a Daniel Defence as well and another.

The c8 was in usage circa 2007 maybe a year or two before,by fleet stand by rifle troop FSRT as it was called then.

They were hand me downs.

Lads on attachment with sfsg providing cordons got to use some exotic to them H&K machinery.

To my knowledge the corps wasn't widely issued H&K 416.

That's not to say it wasn't used in some form,it wouldn't be ridiculous to think it was.

 

[John Gryphon]

I recall seeing some GIs telling the story of being pinned down in Afghanistan by long distance rifle fire. Their 5.56s were ineffective in reply

Sometimes you need to reach for the arse kicker.

DRD Tactical's Kivaari Semi-Auto .338 Lapua Magnum Review - Firearms News

It has not only range and striking power, but is also backpack portable!

www.firearmsnews.com

 

[kimh]

403 error code

 

[John Gryphon]

Not for me mate.

 

[Laurie]

First time around had they done it properly they would have adopted the EM -2, well they did briefly until politics got in the way. Of course the Americans were never going to adopt a British designed weapon.

It wasn't the weapon that was the issue, rather the cartridge. The Americans were not prepared to accept the 280/30 (7X43mm) and that was that. The officer who headed up the US Army's smallarms design and development organisation Col Renee Studler, and a lot of senior US military behind him were wedded to a full-power 30-calibre, and simply pretended they could overcome the laws of physics that this invoked - rifle weight, recoil impulse, barrel heating and all that. A bit like Net-Zero today - tell yourself forcefully enough, and 20 times a day that something's possible and it'll be done and it's worth doing despite all the evidence against it ........... and you eventually believe with your whole being, at least until the day arrives the whole mess comes crashing down round your ears.

Only the T65E3, which was adopted as the 7.62mm NATO, would meet NATO's needs (for which read satisfy the US Army's opinion) ......... until the day that the US Army woke up and decided that the 7.62 was a crap late 20th century individual weapon cartridge and what NATO (read the US Army) really, really needed was the 5.56X45mm.

The EM rifles like the original FN FAL (which truly was an Automatique, and really was Legere [Light] couldn't handle the T65E3. The FAL was scaled up so much that only the 'F' (Fusil) bit was still true, but the EM2 died because it had been built around a true intermediate power cartridge and would never support a full-power thirty. ............. and NATO still doesn't have a proper intermediate power / calibre rifle cartridge three-quarters of a century after it was formed.

 

[John Gryphon]

A simplification would be to have a standard rifle in a standard calibre that us and all allies share.
One brand, swaps in field, familiarity, swap parts blah blah.

 

[Laurie]

A simplification would be to have a standard rifle in a standard calibre that us and all allies share.
One brand, swaps in field, familiarity, swap parts blah blah.

That was the original NATO intention. Having forced the 7.62 cartridge down its unwilling allies' throats, they simply refused (and rightly too as it turned out) to also swallow the Springfield Amory designed T44 rifle aka M14 which the USA was pressuring them to accept as the sole alliance rifle design. If it hadn't been for a falling out between Belgium and West Germany, it would have ended up as USA: M14 ....... every other NATO member FN FAL. (The German government bought Belgian made FALs which they called the G1 for the newly reconstituted Bundeswehr, but given the numbers involved, wanted a licence to manufacture further quantities in Germany. The Belgian Parliament mutinied, wounds were still far too raw less than 10 years after WW2 and refused FN permission. The Germans then went to CETME in Spain where fugitive WW2 era German arms designers had fled in 1945 and continued work on roller-locking delayed-blowback action weapons one of which which became the HK91 and was adopted by the Bundeswehr as the G3 ..... and also became the FAL's sole competitor in many markets.)

 

[Bowland blades]

It is a .223

Edgar Brothers have done a video on it.. I will find standby

Carry more ammo ? I have always seen this as a cost Accountants pitch, regular forces simply do not get enough trigger time. If they had it they wouldn't need so much to carry in the lighter ammo and could engage successfully further away from the enemy

 

[jthyttin]

I do wonder what 'R&D' is involved in producing a rifle based on the AR15 platform

Even if your production team could take the tender documents, slap together few different models of known combinations of components (i.e. no reliability testing needed), test them side by side and come up with design in one week...

... you'd still have to fly some individuals or rather a team, over the pond several times, to discuss with customer. Try to pry out what they really want, why there are silly requirements in the tender (are they trying to rule out some manufacturer etc.) and so on.

Man hours and travel expense alone quickly adds up to tens of thousands for foreign bidder like KAC.

And there's some real R&D at KAC, expenses of which should be devided among their different customers. If they e.g. really have AR bolt that can take 50k rounds, that's something! (IIRC the design life for bolt in carbine platform is 5k)

 

[Dorset Shakari]

Not sure what value Edgar Brothers add. £9k for an AR, even with the Gucci add-ons, seems an awful lot of money.

 

[bowji john]

Has the idea of the 6.8 fury been binned then?

 

[Dave Lakes]

Carry more ammo ? I have always seen this as a cost Accountants pitch, regular forces simply do not get enough trigger time. If they had it they wouldn't need so much to carry in the lighter ammo and could engage successfully further away from the enemy

Because in a real situation, most troops are actually just giving cover fire to win superiority, then allowing for other methods of engagement (air, sniper, artillery etc) or movement. Not saying individuals haven’t directly engaged enemy troops, but for the most part, that’s not how firefights unravel. So you might as well carry lighter rounds, as 99% of them are not fired at the enemy, just at the bit of cover that they’re hiding in.

Actually most rounds are just carried around a main operating base, so 22 LR would be my preference!

 

[Tim.243]

View attachment 328018
Malaya or Borneo conflict/konfrontasi

Someone's relative....

 

[Mungo]

Has the idea of the 6.8 fury been binned then?

You’ve got to think that the design of the cartridge is just far too complex and expensive for genuine army scale production.