The "New" Assault Rifle

I3BrigPvSk said:
It seems the US military has decided to get this one as their new assault rifle. Is it a good idea or a bad idea? The Americans have been sceptical toward the 5,56x45 for a long time, but hesitated to go for a weapon with an intermediate caliber between 5,56 and 7,62.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the problem in just returning to the 7.62mm round if the 5.56mm isn't enough, there is plenty of tooling in place to make it and it doesn't create an extra logistics trail to be maintained.
 
MontyB said:
I don't understand the problem in just returning to the 7.62mm round if the 5.56mm isn't enough, there is plenty of tooling in place to make it and it doesn't create an extra logistics trail to be maintained.
Click to expand...
I think the Americans want to eat the cake and keep it. The 5,56 is too weak, but to get 7.62 reduce the amount of ammunition the soldiers can carry. Therefore they are looking at a caliber between 5.56 and 7.62, but they seem to be very hesitant to either add a new caliber to the NATO standard.
 
Personally I'd opt for the 7.62, longer legs and hits harder then the 5.56. Another good round was/is the 6x55 Swedish,extremely accurate and hits hard. But to reiterate, I'd feel the 7.62x51 is the best bet.
 
I would go for the 6,8 SPC. It has a better kinetic energy than the 5,56 and the soldier can carry the same amount of ammunition as he can now. It would be much better if the entire platoon had the same caliber for the assault rifles and the machine guns.
 
BritinBritain said:
Personally I'd opt for the 7.62, longer legs and hits harder then the 5.56. Another good round was/is the 6x55 Swedish,extremely accurate and hits hard. But to reiterate, I'd feel the 7.62x51 is the best bet.
Click to expand...
I assume you meant the 6.5X55 Swedish, a nice little round! The 6.8 was developed by some Army guys working privately with Remington, so it's not a military developed round & they tend to go for 'military" rounds. The 5.56/223 was wedged into a narrow space between the .222 Remington & the .222 Rem. Magnum, 2 existing civilian rounds with just slightly more/less MV, probably either would have worked.
 
George said:
I assume you meant the 6.5X55 Swedish, a nice little round! The 6.8 was developed by some Army guys working privately with Remington, so it's not a military developed round & they tend to go for 'military" rounds. The 5.56/223 was wedged into a narrow space between the .222 Remington & the .222 Rem. Magnum, 2 existing civilian rounds with just slightly more/less MV, probably either would have worked.
Click to expand...
I had the impression the 6,8 SPC was developed by the US Special Forces and the Barrett Firearms
 
When UK was talking about getting rid of the L1A1, (which was an excellent rifle, albeit too long, trying to debus a Land Rover or 4 tonner in a hurry was a nightmare) there was talk about the SA80, a family friend worked on the rifle at RSAF Enfield lock stated the who idea was wrong, he basically told his boss it would never work.

I thought that the FNC would be a better replacement, being very similar to the L1A1 albeit scaled down. To me the SA80 was a bad idea, magazine in wrong place and cannot be fire left handed.
 
The British get a new assault rifle

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
It looks a better rifle then the SA80, BUT, a number of questions

1 Weight
2 Reliability
3 Calibre
4 Accuracy
5 Sturdiness of weapon, Is it Pongo proof
6 Ease of maintenance

These are just a few questions off the top of my head, no doubt there are a lot more questions that need to be asked.
 
I remember moving from the SLR to the SA80 in 1989, the weight difference was brilliant. Plus the sling was far better and made it a lot easier to carry.
 
I'd take the SLR over the SA80 anytime, the SLR worked and was battle proven. In all honesty I'd rather carry a Sterling SMG then an SA80
 
Last edited:
The Highway Man said:
I remember moving from the SLR to the SA80 in 1989, the weight difference was brilliant. Plus the sling was far better and made it a lot easier to carry.
Click to expand...
We switched from the SLR to the Steyr and yes, the weight difference was massive and a major positive, but I don't think anyone thought the Steyr was a better rifle than the SLR.
 
Don't get me wrong, the SA80 was a lot easier to carry due to the weight and the sling, but the SLR in my eyes, was more powerful, accurate and the round travelled further, making it a superior (although dated) weapon. 👍
 
Having watched this Ukrainian war evolve I am starting to reach the conclusion that the best outcome for the West may be to forgo "national pride" and agree to a single NATO weapon made locally to ensure supply.
 
The major problem I have with the SA80, it cannot be fired left handed, if you want to keep your teeth. in my opinion the best way forward would have been, either shortening the SLR or adopting the FNC. The SAS adopting the M16 (or whatever model they use) says it all.
 
BritinBritain said:
The major problem I have with the SA80, it cannot be fired left handed, if you want to keep your teeth. in my opinion the best way forward would have been, either shortening the SLR or adopting the FNC. The SAS adopting the M16 (or whatever model they use) says it all.
Click to expand...
The Swedish armed forces replace the FNC and get a SAKO which is a AR-15 configured assault rifle. The FNC is apparently too heavy. NATO is going for AR-15 configured rifles. I think NATO does it because it is easier and cheaper to configure an AR-15 rifle to a new caliber. It has been a lot of criticism toward the 5,56x45 caliber, but nobody wants to go back to the 7,62x51
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top