that's exactly it
Knight's Stoner 1 (KS-1) - New Rifle for British Army
- Thread starter Sampo
- Start date
404Shooter
Well-Known Member
Thank you @Laurie for the historical perspective. Such debates can be emotive and divisive, and it’s good to have some facts to inform that debate. For my part I offer a couple of observations:
I learned my ‘skill at arms’ on the SLR and even with its rudimentary iron sights I was able to achieve decent scores on the Whitehead Cup at 500m (yes, most of the ranges are still measured in yards but so be it, and yes, I had a very good instructor). I was especially grateful when required to use the rifle in anger as both the rifle, and the round, did what was required.
When the SA80 was introduced I’m sure I sat in the bar and questioned the suitability of the round and the rifle’s engineering. It took a while to adjust to the bullpup design but as the engineering (robustness) improved I quickly learned to appreciate the lighter weight and shorter length and, in my experience, the round does what it’s required to do. As I learned more about the craft, and the theatre of operations changed, I really valued being able to carry three, four or five times as much ammunition. This is genuinely reassuring when you know most of your peers are, at best, average shots and rarely get sufficient range time. I’ve said this before on here but ‘quantity has a quality all of its own’, especially when your close air support is not always as readily available as Hollywood or the BBC might have you believe.
There are often comments on here about the marksmanship standards of those in the military as observed by those in the stalking and shooting communities. I am privileged to have seen things from both sides and I’m the first to admit that I probably fire more rounds a year now than I did for many years in the Army. However, as I take every shot now I revel in the knowledge that my rifle has not been bounced about in a vehicle no perhaps borne my body weight or hit the ground as I sought cover, and as a result shifted zero. I also quite like the fact that my quarry today is not ‘ambushing’ me nor returning fire. Now, when I take the shot I am doing only that. I am not giving or receiving orders, using the radio, moving as quickly as I can (and out of breath) or trying to avoid ‘friendly fire’. Oh, and I’m not shi**ing myself!
Returning to the KAC, I have no doubt it is an excellent weapon system and I’ll admit to being more than a little jealous that I’m not around now to try it out first hand. I hope our colleagues from over the pond might share their more intimate experience. I fully understand the cost side of it and, as I’ve said, if it is to be in 5.56 I’m more than happy with that (for now). What worries me is that bringing in a discrete weapon system that is limited to certain units can have a number of direct and indirect consequences. If the KAC is as good as its reputed to be then it will improve effectiveness but only in those certain units. It may also, in the short term, have a positive effect on recruiting for those units. Adversely, the logistic ‘bill’ can be hard to swallow for some because something will have been removed from the programme ‘for the many’, to fund a rifle ‘for the few’. More broadly, this can be genuinely disheartening ‘for the many’ and can effect recruiting and retention: for example, think about issuing Infantry with SUSAT sights and other Arms with inadequate iron sights when SA80 was introduced. Interesting times.
I learned my ‘skill at arms’ on the SLR and even with its rudimentary iron sights I was able to achieve decent scores on the Whitehead Cup at 500m (yes, most of the ranges are still measured in yards but so be it, and yes, I had a very good instructor). I was especially grateful when required to use the rifle in anger as both the rifle, and the round, did what was required.
When the SA80 was introduced I’m sure I sat in the bar and questioned the suitability of the round and the rifle’s engineering. It took a while to adjust to the bullpup design but as the engineering (robustness) improved I quickly learned to appreciate the lighter weight and shorter length and, in my experience, the round does what it’s required to do. As I learned more about the craft, and the theatre of operations changed, I really valued being able to carry three, four or five times as much ammunition. This is genuinely reassuring when you know most of your peers are, at best, average shots and rarely get sufficient range time. I’ve said this before on here but ‘quantity has a quality all of its own’, especially when your close air support is not always as readily available as Hollywood or the BBC might have you believe.
There are often comments on here about the marksmanship standards of those in the military as observed by those in the stalking and shooting communities. I am privileged to have seen things from both sides and I’m the first to admit that I probably fire more rounds a year now than I did for many years in the Army. However, as I take every shot now I revel in the knowledge that my rifle has not been bounced about in a vehicle no perhaps borne my body weight or hit the ground as I sought cover, and as a result shifted zero. I also quite like the fact that my quarry today is not ‘ambushing’ me nor returning fire. Now, when I take the shot I am doing only that. I am not giving or receiving orders, using the radio, moving as quickly as I can (and out of breath) or trying to avoid ‘friendly fire’. Oh, and I’m not shi**ing myself!
Returning to the KAC, I have no doubt it is an excellent weapon system and I’ll admit to being more than a little jealous that I’m not around now to try it out first hand. I hope our colleagues from over the pond might share their more intimate experience. I fully understand the cost side of it and, as I’ve said, if it is to be in 5.56 I’m more than happy with that (for now). What worries me is that bringing in a discrete weapon system that is limited to certain units can have a number of direct and indirect consequences. If the KAC is as good as its reputed to be then it will improve effectiveness but only in those certain units. It may also, in the short term, have a positive effect on recruiting for those units. Adversely, the logistic ‘bill’ can be hard to swallow for some because something will have been removed from the programme ‘for the many’, to fund a rifle ‘for the few’. More broadly, this can be genuinely disheartening ‘for the many’ and can effect recruiting and retention: for example, think about issuing Infantry with SUSAT sights and other Arms with inadequate iron sights when SA80 was introduced. Interesting times.
trickie
Well-Known Member
Bullpups, do have pros as well as cons.
longer barrel = higher velocity = more stopping power at ranges in excess of those considered good for a 16” barrel
shorter easier to deploy, carry.
lefties or at a disadvantage, however as most uk recruits have little to no shooting experienc, training to shoot right handed is not to onerous
longer barrel = higher velocity = more stopping power at ranges in excess of those considered good for a 16” barrel
shorter easier to deploy, carry.
lefties or at a disadvantage, however as most uk recruits have little to no shooting experienc, training to shoot right handed is not to onerous
And that is one of the issues with our forces today , we fight wars enough to take territory away from the enemy - yet we never actually remove the enemy and after throwing a sh*t load of cash our governments' say " job done !" and the enemy is flooding the ground we held before we even remove those who have aided us or removed all our heavy weapons !
LeftHandGuy
Well-Known Member
The real world difference is negligible, although technically you are correct.
Except that it means the approximately 10% who would shoot better left handed are condemned to never be able to shoot to their full potential. Which seems a little silly when a conventional non-bullpup design makes this a non-issue.
It also means that the rifle cannot be usefully brought to either shoulder (a useful skill, especially in urban areas).
Anyway, this news is good news for UK armed forces. With any luck this will have a significant impact on Project Grayburn too.
The better bullpup designs allow for the rifle to be configured to eject left or right, but that has downsides too as the conversion is not a task to be undertaken in a high stress situation.
The nature of bullpup configuration means that the trigger linkage is necessarily long, creating a generally long "mushy" trigger pull, that almost certainly consumed whatever accuracy advantage the longer barrel provided in the first place.
Not all bullpups are equal of course. And the SA80 series is probably the worst ever accepted into large scale military service. It was excessively expensive, this initial plastics were brittle, in addition to the well documented reliability issues. In addition the bloody thing was heavy for a 5.56 assault rifle....
I thought so too
Last edited:
So, presumably, are righties who find they have to shoot left-handed around cover at some point?
trickie
Well-Known Member
A few very good points there. Despite it being a bit heavy for a 5.56, it was much lighter that the L1A1, that by the time of its demise was past its sell buy date and shpulse have been replaced at least 10 years earlier.
The new equipment are often selected after the last war as in Vietnam US started with m14 and ended with m16 in Afganistan some m14s used again. 7,62*54r was made for the Mosin Nagant 1891, its also used in PKM and the Dragonov.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….
The first are delivered to troups late this year.
hybridfiat
Well-Known Member
I am a little dubious about the new US rifle the XM70 that uses the .280 Fury round.
It is very high tech and it's ballistics sounds simply wonderful.
BUT, it weighs 10lbs BEFORE you add sights and a light.
Wikipedia's page has tried to skate around the weight issue but more realist commentators who have access to the test rifle have put the all up weight of the rifle at 14lbs (loaded).
The idea of todays soldier lugging 12-14lbs of rifle around and then performing well in combat is fanciful.
It is very high tech and it's ballistics sounds simply wonderful.
BUT, it weighs 10lbs BEFORE you add sights and a light.
Wikipedia's page has tried to skate around the weight issue but more realist commentators who have access to the test rifle have put the all up weight of the rifle at 14lbs (loaded).
The idea of todays soldier lugging 12-14lbs of rifle around and then performing well in combat is fanciful.
One of the benefits are what ordinary soldiers are having the ability to shoot out to 600m with the standard rifle and firecontrol unit, the best soldiers can hit out to 900m with it. What cant be done with 5,56 but you dont have use for the extra range inside buildings. The machinegun version are much lighter than FN MAG in 7,62 and so is the ammo.
This new scope is fascinating
It appears to combine my Swaro 1 - 8 z8i with my Sig Sauer 10k bins
All instantly available to the shooter
It appears to combine my Swaro 1 - 8 z8i with my Sig Sauer 10k bins
All instantly available to the shooter
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Yep - I have a couple of Mosins and love shooting them. Last week we were hitting 12” square steel at 400 yds with ease and some authority with a 4x scout-mounted long-eye relief pistol scope on a 1942 91/30. Great fun - just wish the range was longer……..
Watch the video and marvel - no wonder the yanks had problems with the mosins and no doubt the russians before them!
Now imagine if it had thermal...
Version 2 ??
Similar threads
