"7.62 Rifle returns to British Army" Topic

From the offical Press Release.

The L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle will fire a 7.62mm round and will enhance accuracy of engagement during longer-range firefights with the Taliban. The weapon will be used by some of the best shots in the infantry.

More than 400 of the semi-automatic Sharpshooter rifles have been bought as a £1.5m Urgent Operational Requirement. It is the first new infantry combat rifle to be issued to troops for more than 20 years.

Training on the rifles will begin in mid-January 2010 and the first batch will be sent to Afghanistan later in the year.
The Sharpshooter will complement the already potent range of weapons used by our forces in Afghanistan, including:

SA80A2 assault rifles, which fire 5.56mm rounds;
Light Machine Guns, which fire 5.56mm rounds;
General Purpose Machine Guns, which fire 7.62mm bullets;
the Combat Shotgun, which fires 12-gauge shells;
the Sniper System, which fires 8.59mm bullets; and
the Javelin Weapons System, the integrated fire-and-forget missile system.

Will this rifle be used like the Soviets used the SVD rifle?

looks like they have been some their for a while (From uK army site):-

Unveiled earlier this year the L115A3 rifle, part of the Sniper System Improvement Programme (SSIP), is a larger calibre weapon which provides state-of-the-art telescopic day and night all-weather sights, increasing a sniper's effective range considerably.

The first batch of SSIP systems was deployed to Afghanistan with members of 16 Air Assault Brigade in May 2008 with subsequent deliveries being made to training units across the UK.

Designed to achieve a first-round hit at 600 metres and harassing fire out to 1,100 metres, Accuracy International's L96 sniper rifle has also been upgraded with a new x3-x12 x 50 sight and spotting scope.

The L115A3 long range rifle fires an 8.59mm bullet which is heavier than the 7.62mm round of the L96 and less likely to be deflected over extremely long ranges.

Different rifle old chap

Will this rifle be used like the Soviets used the SVD rifle?

You mean like one per section? With 400 rifles to be split between the 25 000 or so infantry that UK has as part of the standing military, that might be a bit tight.

Maybe one per platoon in the fire support section.

36 infantry battalions, 3 rifles companies each of 3 rifle platoons, makes 324. On the other hand, that's plenty enough to issue one per section if you do it just to the people in Afghanistan, which seems quite likely.

All the best,

John.

It seems like a prudent move, especially in the wide open spaces of Afghanistan.

I imagine the troops would like a lot more of them though, e.g. at least one per squad. Two would probably be better.

On the other hand, that's plenty enough to issue one per section if you do it just to the people in Afghanistan, which seems quite likely.

Still, there needs to be some left back in the Old Blighty for training purposes.

Plus when units rotate in and out of Afganistan, somebody needs to manage the transfer of the rifles to the new units. But the same probably already applies to a plenty of material that is in limited supply.

at least one per squad

As far as I know, the British army does not have any of those.

And back to the original post, didn't know that they have started using Javelin AT-missiles against Johnny Taliban.

7.62mm, or larger, when you want "to reach out and touch someone"…..

We used to have a 7.62mm semi-automatic rifle, the SLR….

Javelin has been used as an anti-personnel weapon for a few years now.

I miss my SLR. Mind you, I'd probably get grief for using one now as I left the service 14 years ago.

Mate reckoned he could put more bullets in a target with his SLR than an M16 in a shorter period of time

Neat looking piece!

link

Has kind of an "FN" look to it, no…?

w.

We used to use a matchstick modification "hey presto fully automatic SLR" I can remember when we were issued SA80 and the insect repellent melted the plastics, it took some time to get used to it but it was awesomely accurate. We were told the 5.56 would mame therefore requiring 2 people to drag the injured away i am sure the taliban coulnt care less about there injured so whats the point. At least with the 7.62 you knew they wernt getting back up.

About time. SF use them all the time and the enemy are definitely using that calibre. The Aussies even have a modified Steyr for use with 7.62.

David
wardepot.blogspot.com
6to20painting.blogspot.com

At that sort of price for four hundred rifles ther is somthing definitly wrong with the procurement

iain

cost would cover all the spares and retool for fitters/armourers gear as well would it not?

"We used to use a matchstick modification "hey presto fully automatic SLR"

Amateurs!! File an extra flat on the change lever, reduce the radius on the outside allowing it to rotate to the 'automatic' setting, reduce the length of the pistol grip plunger. Scrounge a clip on M16 bipod from our american cousins and hey presto controllable automatic!!!

Been there, done that :-)

Well with the longer ranges possible in that environment … a full .30 cal round certainly has it's advantages over a 5.56 round. Even if Max Effective Range is as much dependant on the type of sighting system as the round. And marksmanship skills make a big difference as well …

This appears to be of a piece with a portion of a show on 'sniper' rifles on the Military Channel a couple of months ago. Four or five of the 10 (proposed US) weapons shown were in 7.62x51.

It seems that the west has discovered what the Warsaw Pact figured out several decades ago – assault rifles are somewhat inadequate for intermediate ranges. As noted above, the Russians developed the SVD to remedy the situation. It wasn't long before the Romanians came out with the PSL 54c (AKA Romak III), and the Yugoslavs the M-76. All as 'designated marksman rifles' for issue at approx 1 per squad.

It puzzles me why it has taken the West so long to come to this view – is it the fact that prior to Iraq and Afghanistan there had been no prolonged infantry combat in ares with more open terrain?

From personal experience (at the range) firing a MAK-90 (semi-auto AK clone) versus a PSL, I can say that at over 200 yds, I would rather have a PSL. I am aware that the 5.56 assault rifles have significantly better accuracy than an AK or even a PSL. But as noted elsewhere, 123 or 147 grains is a bit nastier than 65 at the receiving end, particularly at range.

P.S. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, I will have an L1A1 together to compare to the PSL. And of course I have never remotely considered the insertion of aluminum foil into the firing assembly.

Amateurs!!
Yeh but at least we never got charged for tampering with equipment when we handed it back into the armoury "Remove matchstick fully working non modified SLR"

It puzzles me why it has taken the West so long to come to this view – is it the fact that prior to Iraq and Afghanistan there had been no prolonged infantry combat in ares with more open terrain?

Yup. Lots of MOUT and jungle-fighting, where the average sightline is like much of Europe: 2-300 meters. I'm still amused that the US is looking at going to a .277-ish caliber weapon for the next infantry rifle, when the brits were trying to use that caliber back in the 1950s.

And how ironic that I just got a call from the local firearms dealer informing me that my PSL-54c has just arrived while reading this thread… and who are you kidding about a measly 147 grains? The match ammunition I've found for the Drag is 174 grain boat-tail hollow-points, and the hunting-grade softpoints are 180 grains. Most 7.62 NATO match ammunition is 168 grain or so.

---
Just found a picture of the new rifle. link It looks like an SR25 or AR30, whatever you want to call an AR15 action scaled up to fire 7.62x51 NATO.

Geoff, your new brits need a DMR!

I like this quote. . .

"The 5.56 mm is sufficiently lethal at the right range, but troops need 7.62 mm for longer ranges. We should be looking at higher performance rounds with higher lethality at longer range. Research is going to filter into user requirements for the soldier system lethality programme," one MoD source told Jane's .

I think the "right range" for 5.56 lethality is about 5 feet, so you can bayonet or hit them with the rifle. Definitely much more effective than shooting them with oversized BB's.

I hope the U.S. military gets its act together soon and switches to a larger round. I think there are new designs of 6mm or 6.5mm rounds out there. If NATO wants to stick to a round that enemies simply find annoying – let them. . but don't make our troops suffer for it.

I hope the U.S. military gets its act together soon and switches to a larger round. I think there are new designs of 6mm or 6.5mm rounds out there. If NATO wants to stick to a round that enemies simply find annoying – let them. . but don't make our troops suffer for it.

Wasn't it the US that first pushed the full-size 7.62 mm round as the standard NATO cartridge in the early days, and then in the 60's turned round and pushed the 5.56 mm as the standard cartridge for assault rifles?

'Yeh but at least we never got charged for tampering with equipment when we handed it back into the armoury'

Fortunately we were the armourers, so it was easy for us to do, and get away with!! Helps when you have access to the spares. All we had to switch, before handing it back in, was the change lever. Leaving the split pin out made switching it over quick and easy. The shortened pistol grip plunger stayed in as it would never get noticed.

20 years ago, when I was having my army service, most of the officers in our artillery unit served in Afghanistan before being sent to the North, where we were located.

I remember that all of them were saying that 7,62 AKM was much better for Afghan environment than AK-74 (that was our designated weapon).
The reasons as far as I remember – AK-74 was indeed making "maiming" wounds – if they hit. On the other size, modjaheds liked heavier caliber weapons – even WWI British rifles – that allowed them even to engage in shooting match at longer distances. Another disadvantage of lighter bullet was, as our former VDV artillery captain told me, was that during engagements near lakes/rivers, the bullets were not able to properly hit the enemy, hiding in reed…

PS Most officers were having AK in addition to PM 100% of the time.

So, this is the operational requirement:

"The urgent operational requirement follows calls from troops on the ground for a weapon that can be comfortably patrolled with, can be rapidly initiated and provide an increased range for contacts out to 800 m."

It beats me why we need a new rifle for this. 800m? Why not just slap on a scope on the least worn out L1A1s and job done?

Or use an SMLE or a No. 4 instead, that would make the Afghans laugh. Barrage sights on the old ones went out to 2000m.

Even better, get the old 7.62mm re-chambered Brens out of storage.

Or use an SMLE or a No. 4 instead, that would make the Afghans laugh. Barrage sights on the old ones went out to 2000m.

Plenty available locally, the workshops in the tr1bal zones of Pakistan can knock them out to order

5.56 – Nato Humanity Round. Bit of a contradiction in terms eh? lol

Even better, get the old 7.62mm re-chambered Brens out of storage.

That'd scare the heck out of 'em, out to almost any practical engagement range you care to mention. I suppose the only argument against it is its weight, as opposed to a rifle.

" I suppose the only argument against it is its weight, as opposed to a rifle."

Its a Bren gun! They'll be fighting to carry it. My Dad said firing the Bren was the most enjoyable thing he did, even if you do have to wiggle it to stop the bullets all going through the same hole. Hmm, I suppose firing a Bren isn't quite the same as carrying it up the side of a mountain. Doesn't weigh as much as a GMPG though.

It would more useful than the LSW, but I guess the ammo supply would be too limited as you aren't going to have the guys carrying spare Bren mags like they used to do in WW2 and postwar.

In a stand-up fight (even in Vietnam), the 5.56 round works pretty well. One wounded man takes 3-4 out of the fight in any force where the fighters care about their buddies. The 6.x mm calibers are trying to increase the delivered energy at the 300-500 meter range bracket, but are otherwise intended to be a direct replacement for the 5.56mm.

It's only when the opponents look at getting shot as an improvement to their lot in life that you really need a bigger bullet.

Lion – if you haven't already been there you might want to hit the SVD/Romak III sub-forum over on the AK files. There appears to be a consensus that PSLs should only be used with the 'light ball' 147 grain ammo. At the time it was designed the light ball was the standard issue and the belief is that the higher recoil energy of heavier rounds could damage the receivers.

Not having been aware of the discussion when I got my own PSL back in 2000, I fired some of the heavy ball that I got with the rifle through it. There is not a significant change in 'perceived' recoil, but the spent cartridges do kick out about 5 feet further (20+ feet total).

Insofar as possible damage to the rifle itself, I haven't seen any. However, the stop on the scope mount is a bit mushed and when I did shoot a couple of the heavy ball cartridges recently I had to re-sight the scope.

At any rate, congrats on your acquisition, it is currently my favorite rifle to shoot (we'll see whether that changes when I get the aforementioned L1A1 finished).

Well something to consider, as recent as WWI, Infantrymen still needed to stop a charging horse. And at the longer range the better. A with full .30 cal round you could do that. But with the advent of Machine Guns, breach loading artillery, etc. horse cav became big tasty targets. As modern tactics evolved with fire & movement, flanking/holding attacks, the need to lay down suppressive fire became more important. And the threat of attack by horse mounted troops diminished. You can see with the limited introduction at the end of the WWII, the German SG-44 really became the first operational Assault Rifle. An Assault Rifle by intent fires an intermediate sized round. Bigger then a pistol or SMG round but smaller then a full rifle round. Closer to a carbine round. But also an Assault Rifle has a larger Magazine capacity so more rounds are available for suppression and to gain fire superiority. The smaller round is a man stopper since the threat of Horse Cav was no longer a consideration. And the smaller Assault Rifle rounds means more rounds can be carried by the individual Infantryman. Which again, is required for the "modern" suppression/fire & movement tactics. And remember most armies in WII were still using Bolt Action rifles through out the war. Save for the US M1 Garand, which by '43 was standard issue for most GIs or Marines. The Max Effective Range of an M16 & M14(which is basically an M1 with a 20 round mag) is the same – 460m. Not because the M16 fires a 5.56mm Assault Rifle round and the M14 fires a full 7.62mm .30 cal. rifle round, but because of the "open iron" sights which both have. The M14 round's Max Range is about 3750m where the M16's is 2500m. And historically most firefights took place at 250m or less. Which is not only dependent on terrain, but generally many troops wait until the target is closer, where they have a better chance at hitting the target. As well as how far can a target be reasonably seen by the naked eye … And now, recently with the European Forces primarily being in conflicts in the deserts and/or mountains. The ability to take a longer range shoot has become more evident … Or you could just Nuc'm !

The BSAP, and RLI learnt some very interesting lessons, during the Rhodesian campaign and insurgency and they won.
What weapons worked, what tactics worked and more importantly what didn't and what got you killed.

I worry that those lessons, seem to have been forgotten. The style of conflict being waged by the taliban is near identicle to that of the chinese back terrorists in rhodesia in many ways. The terrain is not too dissimilar either.

I can see many ex RLI troopie and BSAP officer cringing at the television screen everytime they see footage of a patrol that has come under fire or an attack against a base etc.

I can only hope these new weapons, are at least one step to improve the lot of our brave lads and lasses out there. They have a tough job to do, and a bloody dangerous one. I only hope our army chiefs can give them the right tools and tactics to win it.

…aren't going to have the guys carrying spare Bren mags like they used to do in WW2 and postwar…

Health and safety, limitations on weight, can't go damaging backs, think of the compensation claims…

Might also be that the section riflemen these days feel like packing more ammo for their own guns.

Back in the WWII, the official ammo allocation for a British rifleman was around 160 rounds – out of these 50 were intended for his rifle, and 110 for the section Bren.

When I was on active duty a Grunt packed 7 30 round M16 mags. In 2 pouches, 3 mags each and one in his M16. 210 rounds total. Ranger units sometimes packed an extra 3 mag pouch, so they carried 300 rounds total … Plus any Grunt could have extra boxes of ammo in their rucks and/or canvas banoliers.

But these days the typical US soldier carries about 600 rounds on his person, plus maybe a spare drum for the SAW or M240, and there's another 5000 rounds in the vehicle.

That's a heavy load, even with a vest or using the armor carrier as your web harness.

[edit] Just did some quick math, those rifles are about 3400GBP each, including spares and optics. standard rule of thumb for optics is to plan on spending as much on glass as you do on the rifle, and a Leopold Mk4 4.5-14x50mm is about $1,500. USD I think the scope the British Army is getting is better (which by definition means more expensive. Leopold optics are very good for the price, but the next step up is Zeiss, which means an extra $1,000 USD on the price tag)

Oh Happy days of the SLR a ont he shoulder if you fired it incorrectly, but very goow indeed as a stopper.

Hi

I still feel that the assertions about the 556 involve feel good propaganda. Any of the above numbers, one is hard pressed to find a actual kill being done at those ranges by anyone.

The M14, the minor difference between the 308 and the 30-06 shows up, if you are a shooter, about 700 yards. You do have 308 kills at 800, but not further, with 06, there have been 1200 yard kills.

But to the topic, this is a case of "what's old is new again". In the 50s we looked into the future and made guesses with the Stoner Prototype. And I don't think it has quite worked out. In WW2 GIs carried similar ammo loads thus obviating the supposed advantage of the 556.

The Wounding issue has the above mentioned flaw, but it has one other that no one addresses; a wounded man can often keep shooting.

Rocky

Martin Rapier wrote:

Its a Bren gun! They'll be fighting to carry it. My Dad said firing the Bren was the most enjoyable thing he did, even if you do have to wiggle it to stop the bullets all going through the same hole. Hmm, I suppose firing a Bren isn't quite the same as carrying it up the side of a mountain. Doesn't weigh as much as a GMPG though.

Wonderful gun, the Bren. My TA unit had some L4s with 1943 date-stamps scored out on the receivers.

While it's true that the bare gun weighs less than a GPMG, a GPMG plus 1,000 rounds of link weighs a good deal less than a Bren plus 1,000 rounds in mags.

All the best,

John.