Re-enter the Battle Rifle?
- Thread starter Matt_Fisher
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3,562
- Points
- 1,120
Any increase we make with the current platforms will be an incremental increase.
To make it worth changing platforms or calibers, there should be more than just an incremental increase in effectiveness (IMO)
Bring on the 40 MW phased plasma rifles....
I think the nearest thing to a huge increase in effectiveness would perhaps have been the G-11 (caseless, ultra high burst ROF etc) but for various reasons it didn't work out.
Not saying that we should have bought G-11's, but I think it was the nearest thing to a huge increase in potential effectiveness.
YMMV, and this is on the edge of anything that could be called my lane, so I'm trying to be careful with my field of fire...
NS
To make it worth changing platforms or calibers, there should be more than just an incremental increase in effectiveness (IMO)
Bring on the 40 MW phased plasma rifles....
I think the nearest thing to a huge increase in effectiveness would perhaps have been the G-11 (caseless, ultra high burst ROF etc) but for various reasons it didn't work out.
Not saying that we should have bought G-11's, but I think it was the nearest thing to a huge increase in potential effectiveness.
YMMV, and this is on the edge of anything that could be called my lane, so I'm trying to be careful with my field of fire...
NS
- Reaction score
- 18,221
- Points
- 1,260
Tuukka said:
Interesting.
I was in somewhere when someone got a call from a senior element at HK USA saying it was a no/go (we had recently beaten them in a very thorough test elswhere). I am aware of the fleas and bugs it has, LAPD SWAT being the open source group that sent them back to go with FN SCAR-H, due to accuracy and reliability issues.
Recently I attended a segment of the Singapore Armed Forces Semi-Auto Sniper System and Infantry Designated Marksman Program.
Of the 10 enterants, only 5 where short listed, as concerns where about extremely new companies not being able to bring a real product to market.
FN pulled the Mk17 out of the trial due to accuracy (the Mk17 SSR is not yet available)
Hk pulled the Hk417 out citing Accuracy and Reliability issues
Hk is also late on some small deliveries (25 and under) (11 months in the case of a Naval Element in Singapore)
LWRCI did not attend with a weapon.
US Ordnance (with the LMT MWS) and ourselves where the only entities to show up with functional working guns.
If Hk is not killing the 417 program I wish them well, however they need to get a working system out there.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Kevin,
Thanks for the reply!
The reason I asked is that I verified this directly from Oberndorf.
It is also quite a current topic for us, as one of the primary weapons our new fast attach mount is intended for, is the HK417.
I have also not heard of reliability or accuracy issues from end users in Europe. I was visiting a particular unit last week and a specific topic was the HK417, no issues.
A quick shot from a test session on Tuesday, we have also had no issues in the accuracy department with our HK417 ( 12" and 20" uppers );
Lapua 167gr Scenar @ 100 meters
Thanks for the reply!
The reason I asked is that I verified this directly from Oberndorf.
It is also quite a current topic for us, as one of the primary weapons our new fast attach mount is intended for, is the HK417.
I have also not heard of reliability or accuracy issues from end users in Europe. I was visiting a particular unit last week and a specific topic was the HK417, no issues.
A quick shot from a test session on Tuesday, we have also had no issues in the accuracy department with our HK417 ( 12" and 20" uppers );
Lapua 167gr Scenar @ 100 meters
- Reaction score
- 18,221
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting.
Yours have the adjustable gas regulator for Unsuppressed - versus Suppressed?
Also you have any 16" ones?
The 12" uppers are in my opinion a horrible idea, why carry 7.62 NATO in that length, as its acting like a 30-30 or worse...
I know its a customer driven idea, but there are times to explain to the customer you can offer him more in less, the Hk418 in 6.8SPC for instance will give better terminal performance with less weight and recoil.
The other issue is the 417 tears up mounted NV systems.
I wonder why HkUSA said what they did to who they did, and also why it tanked the Brit Sharpshooter trial for accuracy etc, and why they pulled out of Singapore.
I'm curious as a gun guy, not as a KAC guy.
Yours have the adjustable gas regulator for Unsuppressed - versus Suppressed?
Also you have any 16" ones?
The 12" uppers are in my opinion a horrible idea, why carry 7.62 NATO in that length, as its acting like a 30-30 or worse...
I know its a customer driven idea, but there are times to explain to the customer you can offer him more in less, the Hk418 in 6.8SPC for instance will give better terminal performance with less weight and recoil.
The other issue is the 417 tears up mounted NV systems.
I wonder why HkUSA said what they did to who they did, and also why it tanked the Brit Sharpshooter trial for accuracy etc, and why they pulled out of Singapore.
I'm curious as a gun guy, not as a KAC guy.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Infidel-6 said:
Knowing what they picked, can you have any reasonable confidence they picked the best rifle available?
"From the makers who brought you such fine weapon system as the SA80..."
(Not literally, just saying that the UK is probably the only military with a worse procurement record than us, mostly due to BAE).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Kevin,
To my knowledge all HK417s have the adjustable gas port. The only ones I have seen without are the 16" HK MR308 civilian versions.
We do not have a 16" currently, but will most likely be purchasing one very soon.
I believe you are pretty spot on with regards to the 12" upper.
I know that at least one of the participants at the UK trials also did bad in the accuracy department, from personally talking to the owner of the company, but I believe the ammo used was not the best possible quality or type, maybe that is why the HK did not do well?
I have no personal feelings towards any of the weapon manufacturers, just that we prefer to have an up to date weapon test collection and as a gun guy, I prefer guns that run reliably and accurately..
See you at SHOT?
To my knowledge all HK417s have the adjustable gas port. The only ones I have seen without are the 16" HK MR308 civilian versions.
We do not have a 16" currently, but will most likely be purchasing one very soon.
I believe you are pretty spot on with regards to the 12" upper.
I know that at least one of the participants at the UK trials also did bad in the accuracy department, from personally talking to the owner of the company, but I believe the ammo used was not the best possible quality or type, maybe that is why the HK did not do well?
I have no personal feelings towards any of the weapon manufacturers, just that we prefer to have an up to date weapon test collection and as a gun guy, I prefer guns that run reliably and accurately..
See you at SHOT?
- Reaction score
- 18,221
- Points
- 1,260
The Brits are actually very good a running trials (and so usually are Cdn's and the US Mil).
The SA80 aside, however it was a system that met their requirements for a short OAL, with a longer barrel and it was made in England.
The British had the L119 win as the C8SFW in their SOF weapon trial, and ended up with the L119A1 as issues with the mounting of the Hk AG was damaging the front sight gas block.
(Unlike PEO Solider they fired enough rounds to see the interface issues)
However the British did use 155gr RG ball for their Sharpshooter role. The SAF ammuntion was 167gr SCENAR BTHP Lapua, 170gr Flatbase FMJ, and 185gr FMJ-BT.
I will be at SHOT of course...
We are having another party with Cerebus (Remington Military, and AAC) and Magpul at the Voodoo Lounge as well :nod:
The SA80 aside, however it was a system that met their requirements for a short OAL, with a longer barrel and it was made in England.
The British had the L119 win as the C8SFW in their SOF weapon trial, and ended up with the L119A1 as issues with the mounting of the Hk AG was damaging the front sight gas block.
(Unlike PEO Solider they fired enough rounds to see the interface issues)
However the British did use 155gr RG ball for their Sharpshooter role. The SAF ammuntion was 167gr SCENAR BTHP Lapua, 170gr Flatbase FMJ, and 185gr FMJ-BT.
I will be at SHOT of course...
We are having another party with Cerebus (Remington Military, and AAC) and Magpul at the Voodoo Lounge as well :nod:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I6,
You might be talking about the relatively small potatoes small arms purchases; I'm talking about the mega-billion dollar contracts that have been wasted on things like the Eurofighter and anti-submarine helos.
You might be talking about the relatively small potatoes small arms purchases; I'm talking about the mega-billion dollar contracts that have been wasted on things like the Eurofighter and anti-submarine helos.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Infidel-6 said:
That's fine, you can be CDS not knowing about other trades. I am was made OIC Small Arms with no former experience; all OJT, baby. Thankfully I am surrounded by Sgts, MWOs, and Capts who are former MWOs that really know what they're talking about.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,718
- Points
- 1,160
NavyShooter said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
As has already been brought up, it is so relatively incremental that it's not really worth it to invest a ton into changing between 5-6-7-8mm (or whatever).
As a general purpose rifle, I'll take the C7A2 any day over what a lot of other countries have.
Also has been brought up, missing someone with a 7.62 rifle isn't going to incapacitate them more than missing them with a 5.56 rifle will.
In my assessment (and the hundreds of people involved who chose the 5.56 platform to begin with), the overall effect is more bad guys killed using rapid rate than with 7.62 inside 300m.
That being said, as stated above I am a big proponents for adding some 7.62 capability to more consistently hit 300-600. But getting back to the purpose of the thread, I think if everyone had a battle rifle we'd be less effective.
As a general purpose rifle, I'll take the C7A2 any day over what a lot of other countries have.
Also has been brought up, missing someone with a 7.62 rifle isn't going to incapacitate them more than missing them with a 5.56 rifle will.
In my assessment (and the hundreds of people involved who chose the 5.56 platform to begin with), the overall effect is more bad guys killed using rapid rate than with 7.62 inside 300m.
That being said, as stated above I am a big proponents for adding some 7.62 capability to more consistently hit 300-600. But getting back to the purpose of the thread, I think if everyone had a battle rifle we'd be less effective.
- Reaction score
- 5,026
- Points
- 1,060
Discussion on the C-6 has been moved to a new thread.
Discussion on the C6 Machine Gun
This thread is about the Battle Rifle. Please keep it that way.
Milnet.ca Staff
Discussion on the C6 Machine Gun
This thread is about the Battle Rifle. Please keep it that way.
Milnet.ca Staff
- Reaction score
- 1,304
- Points
- 1,040
Just one point that I feel belongs in this thread and not the GPMG thread:
I feel that some are confusing the current discussion when 7.62mm is mentioned. The battle rifle is for accurate single-shot fire out to 600m. The calibre of 7.62mm is mentioned for many reasons, one of which is that with it, it's possible to have a relatively flat trajectory out to that range, making aiming a bit easier to manage. A 7.62mm MG is a different cat, and certainly not for accurate single-shot fire out to 600m! (See other thread for details)
I feel that some are confusing the current discussion when 7.62mm is mentioned. The battle rifle is for accurate single-shot fire out to 600m. The calibre of 7.62mm is mentioned for many reasons, one of which is that with it, it's possible to have a relatively flat trajectory out to that range, making aiming a bit easier to manage. A 7.62mm MG is a different cat, and certainly not for accurate single-shot fire out to 600m! (See other thread for details)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
In my opinion the C6 vs C9 debate is quite relevant and parallel to the battle rifle vs assault rifle debate because a lot more people can conceptualize the difference between the C6 and C9 so it may help them understand the latter a bit better.
Arguably the pros and cons of each are quite similar in that one weighs more than the other and because of that you get some more power and range. The big difference being the effect in one category is a beaten zone killing everything and the effect of the other being a precision (one man) incapacitation.
What is great about the modern battle rifles though is that they are close enough to an assault rifle size-wise that you can insert some 7.62 systems to increase the overall effectiveness at section level, where as a C6 is not swappable with a C9 because it is too big for section movement.
Arguably the pros and cons of each are quite similar in that one weighs more than the other and because of that you get some more power and range. The big difference being the effect in one category is a beaten zone killing everything and the effect of the other being a precision (one man) incapacitation.
What is great about the modern battle rifles though is that they are close enough to an assault rifle size-wise that you can insert some 7.62 systems to increase the overall effectiveness at section level, where as a C6 is not swappable with a C9 because it is too big for section movement.
- Reaction score
- 18,221
- Points
- 1,260
I would suggest that if desired a Lightweight 7.62mm Assault MG (FN Mk48 or US Ordnance Mk43) could be used at section levels.
However I think that its a tool in the tool box, and while an option for SOF units with large budgets, its probably not an option for the convention forces (but the US Army has fielded Mk48's to convention forces in Afghan to lighten the load, and the C6/M240 is not reaaly needed outside of defensive positions in Afghan, but the lighter weight is much appreciated while out and about.
The Battle Rifle - as either a SOF Assault Rifle, or a DM can give an 800m envelope with a skilled sniper, and 600-700m performance with a less skilled shooter.
Precision fire can never be discounted, and the bonus in a COIN environment are priceless.
However I think that its a tool in the tool box, and while an option for SOF units with large budgets, its probably not an option for the convention forces (but the US Army has fielded Mk48's to convention forces in Afghan to lighten the load, and the C6/M240 is not reaaly needed outside of defensive positions in Afghan, but the lighter weight is much appreciated while out and about.
The Battle Rifle - as either a SOF Assault Rifle, or a DM can give an 800m envelope with a skilled sniper, and 600-700m performance with a less skilled shooter.
Precision fire can never be discounted, and the bonus in a COIN environment are priceless.
- Reaction score
- 7,649
- Points
- 1,160
I-6's point, supported by a number of others, about the need for a section/platoon/company "armoury" from which the right weapons can be selected seems to me to be about right.
If you are doing most of your fighting lying down (prone position, stable platform, engaging targets either singular or in hordes as was the case for NATO and is the case, if I understand correctly, for FOBs), tactilcally defensive, then 7.62 is the answer. The logistics of the heavier round are less onerous when you have gone firm and the supply system can keep you fed.
If you are doing most of your fighting on your feet (patrolling, advance to contact, meeting engagements, only supplied with what you can carry, engaging targets around the next corner and up the stairs) then a lighter round, 5.56 makes more sense.
If you can't get one rifle/mg combination that will fire both calibres, and from what I can gather on this and other threads that is not completely out of the question with this talk of interchangeable uppers and receivers, and M16s being fitted with Gas Pistons to make them operate like an FNC1 or an AK47, then at least you can get the same weapon in two different calibres and keep them both in stores.
At least you will have common training, drill and handling. And the field commander gets to decide if he wants a room clearing or rapid reaction assault section in his defensively oriented platoon/company, or if he wants a heavy support section in his platoon that has been tasked for a clearing mission.
If you are doing most of your fighting lying down (prone position, stable platform, engaging targets either singular or in hordes as was the case for NATO and is the case, if I understand correctly, for FOBs), tactilcally defensive, then 7.62 is the answer. The logistics of the heavier round are less onerous when you have gone firm and the supply system can keep you fed.
If you are doing most of your fighting on your feet (patrolling, advance to contact, meeting engagements, only supplied with what you can carry, engaging targets around the next corner and up the stairs) then a lighter round, 5.56 makes more sense.
If you can't get one rifle/mg combination that will fire both calibres, and from what I can gather on this and other threads that is not completely out of the question with this talk of interchangeable uppers and receivers, and M16s being fitted with Gas Pistons to make them operate like an FNC1 or an AK47, then at least you can get the same weapon in two different calibres and keep them both in stores.
At least you will have common training, drill and handling. And the field commander gets to decide if he wants a room clearing or rapid reaction assault section in his defensively oriented platoon/company, or if he wants a heavy support section in his platoon that has been tasked for a clearing mission.
I think the big problem with the "mix-and-match" armoury concept is the cost and the logistics of implementing it. That, and by micro-tailoring your force to deal with specific situations, you are reducing its overall flexibility. In a defensive situation, the issue of a 7.62mm rifle providing greater range and firepower is overshadowed by your crew-served weapons bringing in another world of firepower. Better, IMO, to keep a force that can deal with 75% of everything than 100% of one specific kind of situation.
Similar threads
