Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

If we do adopt the winner of the US Army's next generation small arms programme we will also need to take a close look at the winning next generation optic as well. It will be needed if the full benefit of the new rifles is to be gained.

In addition I think we should follow the US Military and move away from the Under Barrel Grenade Launcher and move to a stand alone version of the HK 40mm GL. The US Army has found removing the weight from a soldiers personal weapon is a positive move and the stand alone ends up being more accurate and is only slightly heavier all in. It also makes it easier for the GL to be used by other members of the Section/Fire Team, just having to pass the GL rather than the whole rifle.

Finally, does anyone know if any trails have been carried out using a suppressor on an L85 A2 or A3, and if any plans are underway for even a limited adoption of suppressors by the British Army?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Caribbean »

Not sure if this would be a section-level weapon, but AEI (UK-based makers of the Venom 30mm) seem to have recently added this to their website

https://aei-systems.com/land/ae84-rcl/

AE84 – RCL Recoilless Rifle
The AE84-RCL is a man-portable, reloadable multi-role Recoilless Rifle designed to fire Mecar’s M540/M550 series range of 84 mm ammunition. Other 84 mm ammunition types are compatible with the AE84-RCL. The rifle consists of a thin walled rifle barrel with a hinged breech locking Venturi recoil damper to the rear. Forward hand and trigger grips provide firing position comfort and a rear stock supports the weapon to the operators shoulder. The AE84-RCL is fitted with optical and reversionary sights as standard. Optional laser ranger finder and image intensification/night vision equipment can be readily fitted. Mecar’s rocket-assisted HEAT round is able to penetrate more than 300 mm of armour steel, and has an effective range of more than 700 metres. A ballistically matched training round is also available.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Looks incredibly similar to the Carl Gustav M3/4, but then again the principal is so simple it is not a surprise. I do think the CG is more advanced and is possibly lighter, but that probably makes it more expensive. On the CG's plus it has the US investing quite a lot in new munitions and optics which will benefit any user with the later versions moving forward.

Regardless I do think something like a reusable 84mm RCL would be very useful at Platoon level, but probably a bit much for Section level.

On the topic of section level weapons, the L-85A3 is still due for replacement around 2030 isn't it?

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

Interesting June video by True Velocity on their US Army option of a new 6.8 mm x 51 mm round for the NGSW.
Its a plastic/polymer composite case with steel head and a tiny copper washer molded thru flash hole in primer pocket to protect the polymer (plastic is an insulator so no cook offs and after firing case cool enough to handle with fingers), ~30% lighter then standard NATO 7.62x51 conventional brass cased round, reported with a 6.8 mm 135 grain SMK, velocity just under 3,000 fps at 60,315 psi.

If reported figures correct looks an impressive round as similar to the ~ 60,000 psi pressure/heat of current 7.62x51 round with better ballistics for a claimed 50% more range and is competing with the more conventional steel head and brass Sig/Sauer 6.8x51 round which to achieve same ballistics needs one third higher pressure of 80,000 psi. How is it possible, ability to mold plastic internally to optimum shape?

PS The third 6.8x51 round option in the US Army competition is a Winchester caseless round and have seen very little info released.


NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

Task & Purpose 25th January article on the new US Army NGSW and its associated 6.8 x 51mm round, think US Army selection of competing designs from Sig Sauer and True Velocity not far off, Army awarded the contract for the NGSW Fire Control sight to Vortex early January in preference to L3Harris offer.

Impressed by the True Velocity 6.8x51 plastic round, ~30% lighter than 7.62, with a 135 gr bullet firing at ~3,000 fps and 60,000 psi which near same pressure as current NATO specs of the 5.56 and 7.62, whereas the competing Sig Sauer steel and brass 6.8x51round firing 135gr bullet at 3,000+ fps needs 80,000 psi, so minimum ~one third more recoil and heat created.

The TV round lower pressure aided by claimed 10% less propellant needed as100-300 fps gained by ability to mould the internal geometry of the plastic case and fired from a compact bullpup rifle with ~20" barrel whereas the more standard design Sig Sauer rifle barrel is only 16".

Still think the 6.8x51 over engineered/powerful for infantry round which requires more expensive rifles as having to use short recoil reciprocating barrels to help tame the recoil, do wonder if Congress will ever fully fund it to replace M4 etc

From <https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tec ... rd%20Brief>

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I think the US Military will go forward with there new ammunition and Rifles as unlike previous programmes there are distinct advantages with these weapons compared to the M4 and M249, though the M240 will also be replaced in many cases due to the performance of the 6.8mm weapons. What is not talked about is that the British Army and MoD have personnel embedded in the US programme, and whatever weapons win the US competition could well be what replaces the L85A3 and L7A2 in UK service with the amazing .388 LMG replacing the L7A2 in the sustained fire role and probably with SF, with the possibility it could replace the old and faithful M2 .50cal in many roles.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

The 6.8 is a 7.62 NATO replacement (IMHO), if you watch videos of either system they kick like mules and that's in their base configuration. Anyone who's seen the video with the Sig with the 8 inch barrel, can tell straight away that it recoils to much for cqb / urban operations.

I believe that whatever wins will then get a scaled-down little brother to fit AR-15 mags, not necessarily firing 5.56. Maybe a scaled-down 6.8 or the 224 Valkyrie projectile.

But I do believe there will still be a high / low mix (like now with 556 / 762) in future.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Caribbean »

Genuine question, as someone used to the L1A1/ SLR, would I still think that the 6.8 "kicks like a mule". It seems that quite a lot of effort has gone into recoil mitigation for the 6.8mm offerings.

If it does, perhaps the approach taken with the .300 AAC Blackout would be appropriate, with different versions of the round for different circumstances, but still able to use a standard magazine, so that you can change from short range/ low recoil to long range/ higher recoil by switching magazines, rather than weapons.

This is not my area of knowledge, so apologies if I'm being too simplistic

The old SMLE (Lee Enfield No 1) - now THAT kicked like a mule - quite nasty - much worse than the L1A1, No 4 or the Enfield Envoy (L39A1)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

One review I saw said that "it recoils like a 762 developed before the 1980's"... :lol:

But I guess I can only go on others accounts tbf.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Other reviews though say the new round and the weapons being developed for it are far more controllable that the 7.62 though more than the 5.56, which is understandable given the performance of the 6.8mm rounds which are superior to the 7.62 in all categories. Add to that the weight savings and that two weapons are basically replacing three of two different calibres and you have the improvement gain over the M4, M249 that the US Army believes justifies the new combo.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

Oh, I believe there will be a place for it, just not to replace all that they are currently claiming.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Obviously things will not change over night and the new weapons will be issued to high readiness units first and then follow on units and so on. The US Army has decided that it wants its frontline Infantry to be able to effectively engage targets protected by their latest level of armour protection at ranges between 600m and 800m, and be able to over match them. They also what to be able to accurately engage and suppress the same targets as well as Light Armoured Vehicles at rages over 1000m with a very portable weapon able to be carried and operated by one man/woman.

The introduction of these new weapons will eventually change what are the standard NATO calibres, and the British Army timescale for replacing the L85 and L7 coincide with the US Army's programme and support the Army's future Soldier programme by increasing his or hers lethality whilst reducing personnel load.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

The Bullpup gets a name... The Phil Collins :shh:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... e-genesis/

Interesting to see the cutaway in the video, it appears to eject when the bcg starts it's forward movement.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

Little J wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 16:43 The Bullpup gets a name... The Phil Collins :shh:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... e-genesis/

Interesting to see the cutaway in the video, it appears to eject when the bcg starts it's forward movement.
Video shows rifle LOA as 29.125", barrel 19" (L85A2 30.9"/20.4") and the internal recoil mitigation system, which firearmsblog reckons to be a short stroke gas system with a counterweight, barrel appears fixed and not to use short recoil barrel as with the Sig Sauer rifle where the entire barrel / barrel extension / bolt assembly recoil inside the receiver against a buffer to reduce peak pressure to safe levels before the bolt abled to be released, required as SS 6.8mm steel/brass round operates at a third higher pressure than the TV 6.8mm plastic round, 80,000 psi vs 60,000 psi.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Cooper »

The US adopting a Bullpup as the standard issue weapons platform, Sorry but..

...HA! that'll be the day.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

If the three weapon teams, I think Sig Sauer should be the favourite due to its similarity to the AR-15, meaning troops will find it far easier to switch rom their existing M4s. The Automatic Rifle version of the Bullpup is magazine fed, and so will be limited when weight of fire is required, though the current doctrine is for accurate single shots or short bursts to engage and suppress targets out to 800m with the new cartridge, which ever wins.

Personally I think whatever weapon the US chooses should be our next Section Weapons, and should be in service by 2030 along with all the other new kit the Army has in its Equipment Programme. Initial High Readiness units should get the Weapons along with the Royal Marines, followed by other units. The change over should be completed by 2032.

We have done a pretty good job extending the life of the L85 and in its A3 form is one of the most effective and accurate 5.56mm Rifles in service anywhere even if it is a bit heavy. Few Rifles in its class can accurately and effectively engage targets out to 600m, the M4 certainly cannot.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

There's only Sig and TV/Beretta (took over from GD), the other one pulled out.

And I just can't help thinking this is a repeat of the 1950's, they're going for a full power cartridge and in a few years time they'll announce that they need an intermediate cartridge coz this one isn't suited to all the jobs they thought it could do...

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

But maybe we should hold on to the L85's for a few more years... :D

These users liked the author Little J for the post (total 2):
CaribbeanDahedd

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapo

Post by SW1 »

Seems like this will pose questions for NATO


Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

I'd be interesting in seeing a comparison between this and 6.5 Creedmoor

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I had a feeling the Sig offering would win, especially with the familiarity Service Personnel would encounter with the controls and handling. It will be interesting to see where this leads the UK as we have had a team form the Army and MoD imbedded in the NGSW programme for quite a while. How quickly, if at all, NATO adopts the 6.8mm as its future calibre rifle ammunition standard had a fairly big question mark over it as some members have only just adopted new 5.56mm platforms.

However the UK is well placed to adopt the new cartridge soon after 2030. Whether we adopt the Sig weapons or try to develop a UK or partner with other countries for a european weapon will affect the cost and timeline for any programme to replace the L85A3 and a number of the L7A2. I would propose the first is the most likely and the second the least. Waiting for a european solution will also be too slow for the UK as well, but it may better fit in with the availability of funding. All of this is superstition and we will have to wait and see.

It must also be mentioned that the rifle and Automatic Rifle are only half of the programme. A new hi tech and expensive optic is also involved that acts in a similar war to an AFV FCS, automatically taking into account range, ballistic trajectory, wind, temperature and other factors and puts the places the targeting reticule where the firer needs to aim to achieve a hit out to 800m!

As for comparing the 6.8mm to the 6.5 Creedmoor, I have read the latter is designed for use optimally at shorter ranges and with a suppressor, though the former will be used with a suppressor as well a lot of the time.

The NGSW programme has taken a relatively short time to go from requirement to chosen weapon compared to historical programmes, including the many previous ones to find a better rifle to replace the M16A2. I believe it is aimed to have units equipped with the new weapons in the field by 2025 at the latest. IF so by the time the UK aims to replace the L85 etc. any issues will have been ironed out and costs stabilised or both weapon and optic.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Cooper »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Apr 2022, 04:25 Whether we adopt the Sig weapons or try to develop a UK or partner with other countries for a european weapon will affect the cost and timeline for any programme to replace
I'd have thought that the cost is going to have to come way down on the Sig platform for the UK to adopt it. Something like $4,000 a piece at the minute.

UK would need, what..at least 100,000? for a service wide replacement, with some in reserve. Of course that would be done over at least a decade, probably two, so the cost could be spread, and in relative terms, a £400 million purchase for a weapons platform is small potatoes, I suppose.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating. 6.8 is a 762 replacement, anyone still believing it will wholly replace 556 is gonna be disappointed.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

Little J wrote: 21 Apr 2022, 07:19 I've said it before, but it's worth repeating. 6.8 is a 762 replacement, anyone still believing it will wholly replace 556 is gonna be disappointed.
Is it not replacing both....

Post Reply