The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Demon Fox]

In regards to the SA-80, all I've ever heard from Brit soldiers is complaints. I was sharing a range with some Brits in AF a couple of months ago and they were ogling over my M4. They mentioned they were supposed to be transitioning to the M4 sometime in the future. I don't know the truth of that - maybe just soldier rumor mill.

The bullpup design certainly has its advantages. In regards to some such as the Steyr AUG, the manufacturer needs to modify it a bit with standard rail systems to allow for attachments and a choice of optics.

For those who really need to shorten the M4 length, there is always the option of the "shorty" barrels a lot of SOF guys like to use. Good for MOUT, but obvious a little less on the max effective range in long engagements. But, if you know the ballistics of your rifle you can always engage effectively with your weapon - whatever it is. An M4 can hit man-sized targets consistently 500 - 600 meters if you know how to judge the winds. It just takes practice.

v/r

DF

[Compost]

In regards to the SA-80, all I've ever heard from Brit soldiers is complaints. I was sharing a range with some Brits in AF a couple of months ago and they were ogling over my M4. They mentioned they were supposed to be transitioning to the M4 sometime in the future. I don't know the truth of that - maybe just soldier rumor mill.

The bullpup design certainly has its advantages. In regards to some such as the Steyr AUG, the manufacturer needs to modify it a bit with standard rail systems to allow for attachments and a choice of optics.

For those who really need to shorten the M4 length, there is always the option of the "shorty" barrels a lot of SOF guys like to use. Good for MOUT, but obvious a little less on the max effective range in long engagements. But, if you know the ballistics of your rifle you can always engage effectively with your weapon - whatever it is. An M4 can hit man-sized targets consistently 500 - 600 meters if you know how to judge the winds. It just takes practice.

About ten years ago the Brits wanted to improve the reliability of the SA-80 5.56mm standard issue shoulder arm. The German arms design and manufacturing company Heckler and Koch was employed and reportedly did a good job. It is likely that Brit soldiers in Afghanistan have been issued the upgraded SA-80. So their complaints could be instance of poor reputation following like a bad smell regardless of improvement, or the improvement was inadequate. SA-80 has been in service for several decades and perception - even if misguided - counts for a lot, so Brit Army may have decided to succeed the SA-80 with a weapon that is clearly better. That weapon could be the M4. But the M4 operates with direct gas which also smells. Successor for the SA-80 is more likely to be the FN Mk16 or the HK416 as both have gas piston operation. Externally the HK416 resembles the M4 so that is a possible source of confusion.

The F88 AUG currently produced by ADI has Picatinny sight rail plus forward lower assembly with handgrip or 40mm grenade launcher plus side rails for laser designator/pointer, taclight, etc. For operation in Afghanistan and elsewhere the F88 carries many different combinations of reflex, and variable magnification day and night sights. The particular combination can be partly a user choice.

For rifle shooting at 500m and beyond it would be preferable to use a 7.62mm big brother such as the fwd-mag FN Mk17 or HK417. FN and H&K each seem to have plenty of corporate energy, so hopefully and before long it will be possible to use a bullpup relative of the Mk17 or HK417.

[Fuchs]

The British have budget troubles, I doubt there's any new standard rifle program that eluded my sight. They spent quite a lot on the upgrades a few years ago and the more special arms such as sniper rifles as well as the other infantry modernisation programs are already quite pricey.


Btw, a few years ago many SA-80 problems were officially explained as being the result of too long intervals between cleaning. You can even have jams in an AK if you don't clean it.

[Pete]

These are questions for Ken White: which rifle or carbine did you like the best? Why did you like it, and what could have been better about it? What did you like or dislike about the other ones that weren't your favorite ones? Memory lane and nostalgia, as it were.

I have a factory-new condition Inland M1 Carbine (like Dad had in the big one, a Winchester-made one IIRC) with a barrel dated December 1943. My carbine doesn't have any of the later design changes or MWOs, but I'll admit the cartridge was anemic and its accuracy and knock-down power were wanting.

[Ken White]

which rifle or carbine did you like the best? Why did you like it, and what could have been better about it? What did you like or dislike about the other ones that weren't your favorite ones? Memory lane and nostalgia, as it were.

I'm not a gun nut, weapons are, to me, tools and no more. All had strengths and weaknesses. As far as "like" goes. the '03 with a scope was fun to shoot and the M-14 was a decent compromise. The M1 was the hardest to harm, the BAR the most all round reliable and the M-16 was the easiest to handle (outside of the so-called Manual of Arms, which is sorta dumb IMO anyway...). I didn't like the weight of the M1 or BAR, did not and do not like that cartridge of the M-16. I carried both M1 and M2 Carbines briefly, bad cartridge as you say and the short stroke piston, like gas impingement is not optimum. If I had to use an issue long gun in combat today, I'd go with the M-14 as a decent compromise (and yes, that short stroke piston isn't ideal... ).

Of non-issued (US) weapons I have fired, I like the Bren, the Japanese Type 99, the M1941 Johnson LMG (not the rifle, haven't fired it) and the FN FAL. I did not like the G3 (or most of the H&K models). I do not like bullpups (compactness is vastly overrated IMO, all weapons are compromises but one gives up too much in the way of range, reliability and functioning for small envelopes). If I could pick any long gun w/o regard to issue status, I'd probably go with an updated FAL like a DSA for range and power in arctic, desert, mountains or most temperate areas; probably a Valmet Rk 95 for jungle (there are some newer types out there but these two have proven reliability records...). However, weapons, like most everything else should really be chosen with an eye on what one is to do -- METT-TC...

[Pete]

I have a Japanese Arisaka Model 99, 7.7mm, that Dad brought back from Occupation Japan. It had the Mum on top of the chamber ground off it because of some U.S. occupation policy to eradicate all of the symbols of the emperor. Its sling was of the M1907 U.S. type that used to be used on the '03 Springfield, leather with the double holes and claw hooks. Dad won the rifle at the Christmas party raffle of the Stars and Stripes-Pacific in 1945. Later I got a bayonet for it that was a bring-back souvenir from a Seabee on Okinawa. It hangs on the wall -- I've never fired it and I go years without oiling it.

[Compost]

I do not like bullpups (compactness is vastly overrated IMO, all weapons are compromises but one gives up too much in the way of range, reliability and functioning for small envelopes).

Understand 'functioning' if that refers to extraction/ejection. Do not understand 'range, reliability'.

However, weapons, like most everything else should really be chosen with an eye on what one is to do -- METT-TC...

Yes indeed and that makes me a gun-nut. It is easier to start with infantry specialists, excluding snipers many of whom already seem able to choose from a variety of weapons. Also easier to consider 5.56 and 7.62mm as the in-service calibres for carbines and rifles.

To produce deliberate semi-auto fire, a marksman needs a long barrel weapon with a fwd-folding bipod (preferable to a gripod) and commonly also a MP-suppressor. That task and the frontend weight could be well handled with a 7.62mm bullpup rifle.

Grenadiers could be using a specialised multi-shot launcher, capable of firing for example 40x46 low-vel and 40x51 medium-vel ammunition. A pistol's useful range is very short and many other PDWs use dubious types of micro ammunition. Integrating a PDW into a specialized launcher would tend to result in a bulky and/or awkward combination. So a grenadier's PDW could be a separate 5.56mm carbine in whichever configuration - fwd-mag or bullpup - is the lighter. If a grenadier were using a single shot launcher attachment, then the bullpup configuration provides good access to the attachment's breech and reduces the frontend weight which is even more useful if a bipod were also fitted. A rifle length barrel would probably be needed to support the launcher attachment, again in 5.56mm calibre as all-up weapon and ammunition weights are problematic for grenadiers. Multiple shots stacked in a single barrel would involve even more frontend weight and hence the same 5.56mm bullpup configuration.

The infantry crews of heavy weapons can be variously engaged in moving and operating the weapon, and then waiting for targets of opportunity or fire orders. The most frequently used crew-served weapons are the medium MG and the medium assault weapon (shoulder fired recoilless rifle or larger variety of rocket-propelled grenade launcher). Their crews would preferably have compact, lightweight PDWs: 5.56mm bullpup carbines. The crews of other weapons usually - and even in light infantry units - operate with access to transport resources for replenishment purposes, so 7.62mm bullpup or fwd-mag carbines.

That leaves the individual weapon for a 'rifleman'. For CQB a fwd-mag carbine is a useful configuration for absolute speed of reloading. If light infantry and if regular drill is prophylactic fire then a fwd-mag carbine in 5.56mm seems preferable, otherwise 7.62mm. If however, the CQB 'rifleman' is routinely expected to carry - in addition to hand grenades - other disposable weapons such as one or even two light assault weapons (eg: M72) or directional mines (eg: M18), then that individuals weapon should be a 5.56mm fwd-mag carbine. At longer range the rifleman would preferably have a 7.62mm rifle. In any conflict against a peer adversary that rifle would have to be issued together with a QA/D MP-suppressor and the suitable weapon (excluding long range tele-sight) would tend towards that of a sharpshooter.

My bias toward 7.62mm is clearly indicated above. But many other arrangements would be practicable. Infantry need scope to obtain shoulder arms that cater for user aptitude and experience/preference for either a fwd-mag or a bullpup, and also to some extent that weapon's calibre: 5.56 or 7.62mm. A future that insists on the bullpup configuration would be as backward as a present that insists upon the fwd-mag. Hence my previous posts.

[Ken White]

I just do not like bullpups...

The action cycling under my cheek is a minor distraction on occasion, mag replacement is awkward. It's a familiarity thing as much as anything...

Understand 'functioning' if that refers to extraction/ejection. Do not understand 'range, reliability'.

That fact, the dislike, has little relationship to the statement that any drive for compactness (or light weight not mentioned and not necessarily involved in attaining small size) in a weapon is likely to affect those factors I cited. As an example, a compact 7.62x51 is going to have a shorter barrel even as a bullpup that almost certainly reduces optimum range. The driver for compactness as you note can affect extraction and ejection which in tune can affect reliability. I simply think the desire for compactness is not a terrible thing, it's just not as important as many seem to think.

Couple of minor comments:

To produce deliberate semi-auto fire, a marksman needs a long barrel weapon with a fwd-folding bipod (preferable to a gripod) and commonly also a MP-suppressor. That task and the frontend weight could be well handled with a 7.62mm bullpup rifle.

My combat use of bipods and / or front hand grips or combinations thereof leads me to believe that both / one is or are an assist device as you note but that there are also disadvantages in terms of handiness and weight that I believe best avoided. Suppressors are a mixed bag, add muzzle weight and a cost and logistic burden that is not needed in most cases. In the case of both, I think they are unnecessary for most riflemen. YMMV.

... many other PDWs use dubious types of micro ammunition.

Agree.

So a grenadier's PDW could be a separate 5.56mm carbine in whichever configuration...

I'd go with a good pistol and multi-purpose 40mm rounds. Again, YMMV.

That leaves the individual weapon for a 'rifleman'. For CQB

CQB is an exception in most combat, therefor it should not drive design IMO.

In any conflict against a peer adversary that rifle would have to be issued together with a QA/D MP-suppressor and the suitable weapon (excluding long range tele-sight) would tend towards that of a sharpshooter.

I think you may be complicating the logisitics of riflemen a bit. Suppressors have uses but they're specialized and not necessary or even desirable for most combat purposes.

... A future that insists on the bullpup configuration would be as backward as a present that insists upon the fwd-mag. Hence my previous posts.

True. All weapons will be compromises. However, in the end, they're simply tools, no more.