New Rifle, New Calibre (?) for the UK Military - Project Grayburn SA80 Replacement

[Delivery]

I know there's quite a few people on this forum that either have a military background or are just generally interested in "things military", so I wanted to ask with all this knowledge and horsepower on this forum what's the views on the potential to replace the SA80 with a more modern rifle and particularly with respect to change calibres away from 5.56mm and 7.62mm - I'm just wondering if there's a new calibre what's it likely to be and would it permutate into sport shooting?

Strategic & Industrial Requirements​

This is perhaps the most rigid part of the project. Unlike previous purchases, the MoD is emphasizing Sovereign Capability:

• UK Manufacture: The weapon must be produced in the United Kingdom to strengthen supply chains and create skilled jobs.
• Exportability: The platform must be designed with the potential for export to allies.
• Strategic Partnership: The MoD is looking for a long-term (17-year) relationship with a supplier to handle not just delivery, but also "spiral development" (upgrading the gun over its life).

Technical Capabilities​

• Lethality vs. Body Armour: A major driver for Grayburn is the need to defeat "current and emerging" body armour. While the MoD is currently leaning toward 5.56mm NATO (for logistics and recoil reasons), they have not ruled out a move to a larger calibre like 6.8mm (similar to the US XM7) or .260 / 6.5mm.
• Surveillance & Target Acquisition (STA): The rifle must come with daylight optics as standard and be able to "rapidly and intuitively" accept night-vision or thermal clip-ons.
• Signature Reduction: There is a requirement for certain variants to use technology that reduces the rifle’s sound, flash, and infrared signature (likely built-in or quick-detach suppressors).
• Ambidextrous/Conventional Design: The military is moving away from the bullpup design of the SA80 in favour of a conventional layout (like the AR-15/M4) that can be fired from either shoulder.

There are already some YouTube videos analysing the weight per round vs. ability to penetrate body armour and should we re-manufacture a foreign rifle under license etc

Thoughts ?

 

[finnbear270]

Wasn't .270 under consideration at some time?

 

[Martiniblack577]

Necked down 7.62 NATO on the table and can only hope a SLR-A2 becomes a reality.

 

[Delivery]

Wasn't .270 under consideration at some time?

.277 SIG Fury is what US are looking at

 

[wytonpjs]

Sadly, @Rory has gone quiet of late but I'd be interested in his thoughts and opinions on this

 

[Dragonfly Ordnance]

I would question the extent to which manufacturing would actually take place in the UK. Aluminium forging, steel production, barrel manufacture, machining—would any of this genuinely be domestic, or would the programme amount to little more than assembling components made in Italy, Germany, Belgium, the US, and elsewhere?

Setting this up from a standing start would be extremely expensive. The UK no longer has large-scale small-arms manufacturing capacity, although Manroy (now FN UK) exists and may be a likely contender.

There are also concerns about the track record of governments of all stripes in delivering complex projects on time and on budget. With no civilian market to keep machinery running once the initial contract is fulfilled, there is a real risk that facilities would be run down and closed, leaving an unsupported rifle system. Future spares, upgrades, and modifications would then require custom manufacture at significant cost.

It may be simpler, faster, and more cost-effective to procure an off-the-shelf solution. For example, purchasing 150,000 Colt M4 carbines at likely $650 USD per unit (with iron sights) would equip every service member across the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Allow an additional $200 per rifle for magazines and small-parts spares.

A subset of 50,000 rifles could be equipped with optics such as a Trijicon ACOG and RMR combination, which in bulk procurement would likely cost around $1,500 per unit, significantly improving frontline capability.

This would deliver a proven rifle system, spares, and optics for frontline units for a total cost of just over $200 million USD. Importantly, spare parts would also be readily available from multiple manufacturers, reducing reliance on any single supplier.

As for developing a completely new rifle and cartridge combination for long-range engagements, this risks repeating the compromises of past ‘battle rifles’ heavier weapons in larger calibres. If long-range and armour piercing is required, drones seem to be a better option for delivering more effective payloads at distance as well as providing reconnaissance.

Also, the nature of warfare is likely to change dramatically over the coming years as advances in robotics and AI continue. In that context, likely spaffing billions on a prolonged, bespoke small-arms programme may not be a prudent investment.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[CWY308]

I think we should run a UK based “franchise” type system with Heckler & Koch same as we do now with the SA80.
BAE should retain the workers doing similar work etc.
why reinvent the wheel?

 

[nick.308]

sounds lovely reinventing our own British army rifle. In reality it will be a waste of money trying to reinvent something that is already available. Like mentioned above just get some Colt M4's with picatinny rails and bobs your uncle. I thought the whole point of 5.56mm nato ammo was a soldier could carry twice as much compared to 7.62mm

 

[NullMac]

Well calibre will have to be a NATO standard, new or not. At the moment we have 5.56 6.5 CM, 7.62 and 338 Lapua in the supply chain to one degree or another.

It does not sound like the 277 project is going that well? Chat about having to drop pressures to get accuracy? So what’s the point of going to a weird calibre for limited ballistic benefit.

 

[Druid]

It will be a 5.56 with an improved cartridge to achieve better body armour performance. Other militaries have done similar, US, Canada.
There’s no money or appetite for a brand new calibre.
contenders are mostly AR platforms which are what has been recently chosen in different variations and manufacturers by the Royal marines and Ranger regiment so likely to be an AR that’s chosen again.

 

[ashray]

the ranger units have a new rifle 5.56 and the royal marines have a new rifle but theirs is 6.5 cal

 

[enfieldspares]

Always fight the last war you fought and never the next war that you might have to fight? We went to war in 1914 as if we were fighting what? The Boer War? We went to war in 1939 as if we were fighting the First World War. Are we now to fight a future war as if it was the Gulf War? Or Afghanistan?

Because what they all lacked was the use of cheap helicopter type mini drones with lethal capability. So to my mind whilst 6.8mm might have benefits we must also perhaps realise that 5.56mm NATO weapons have greater magazine capacity and more controllability under automatic fire and that may be the "best" close in drone defence.

There's no use having 6.8mm if your most likely threat to you isn't a tribesman stood behind a wall five hundred yards or a man in body armour three hundred yards away away but in fact a small rapidly moving drone fifty yards away.

 

[Druid]

the ranger units have a new rifle 5.56 and the royal marines have a new rifle but theirs is 6.5 cal

The 6.5 is not a new rifle, it’s a rebarelled L129. Formerly 7.62mm
I was talking about 5.56 AR platforms, here’s a link-

Royal Navy procures new rifle for specialist commando operations

Royal Marines from the UK Commando Force have been issued a new rifle for specialist operations, including counter-terrorism.

www.royalnavy.mod.uk

 

[GBR66]

sounds lovely reinventing our own British army rifle. In reality it will be a waste of money trying to reinvent something that is already available. Like mentioned above just get some Colt M4's with picatinny rails and bobs your uncle. I thought the whole point of 5.56mm nato ammo was a soldier could carry twice as much compared to 7.62mm

it was, but that was before body armour became everyday wear so something more punchy is required.

 

[GBR66]

the ranger units have a new rifle 5.56 and the royal marines have a new rifle but theirs is 6.5 cal

Royals have always been keen on wearing ladies clothes on a run ashore....

 

[Druid]

Deleted, fat fingers repost

 

[finnbear270]

it was, but that was before body armour became everyday wear so something more punchy is required.

Steel or other more specialised core?

 

[Delivery]

Well calibre will have to be a NATO standard

This is the interesting point - the way the tender is written- is that in theory the requirements rule - other people's comments and scepticism acknowledged.

So no, not stated or specifically a standard NATO round but everyone acknowledges there's a degree of jeopardy in either;
a) Sticking with a standard NATO round that may or may not produce the armour defeating capability requested
b) Developing something new/non standard that meets the requirements that then gets diluted down to the standard NATO calibres and costs billions and never works (akin to the SA80 Mk1)
c) Following the yanks - who everyone knows the yanks always know best - and assuming the 6.8x51 will become a "standard" NATO round

If I'm not mistaken something like this happened during the argument about the 1960s "standard" NATO round when America said it had to be 7.62x51, UK adopted the SLR and then they went with 5.56x45
So I would argue that if HK/Sako/whoever can offer a different calibre on their current platform why wouldn't it be possible to develop something which could be developed as (say) 6.8x51 then pivot to 6.5CM or even 7.62NATO if the procurement experts at DE&S (no pun intended) decided to change their minds at the last minute and make calibre compatibility more important than meeting the tender requirements best. I think there's a precedent(sss) for that too.

 

[GBR66]

Steel or other more specialised core?

From the Googlyweb:
The U.S. Army's new 6.8mm cartridge, designated as the .277 SIG Fury (6.8x51mm Common Cartridge), operates at extremely high chamber pressures, typically around 80,000 psi (551.6 MPa). This is significantly higher than the standard 5.56 NATO (approx. 62,000 psi) or 7.62 NATO (approx. 60,000 psi). To handle these pressures, the ammunition utilizes a hybrid three-piece case with a steel base and brass body. The high pressure allows for a 140gr bullet to reach velocities of approximately 3,000 feet per second (fps) from a 16-inch barrel. This is in contrast to the old 6.8mm Remington SPC (6.8x43mm): This is a different, older cartridge designed for the AR-15 platform, with a much lower maximum SAAMI pressure of 55,000 psi.

 

[Delivery]

so something more punchy is required

And I thought there was something in some convention about not causing "too much" injury (or something) that basically meant your ammunition had to stay non-penetrating to be legal - I'll try and find that reference later if I get a chance.