Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles

[daftandbarmy]

Really? What is your reasoning? The SA80 A1 I used in depot was terrible, but I found the SA80 A2 to be excellent – and easier to hold in a decently alert position (when patrolling etc.) than a C7. The kicker for me has to be the HK UGL versus the 203 – I found the C7 w/203 to be cumbersome as hell, but the A2 w/UGL to be comparatively easy to handle.

Curious to hear your thoughts. I suppose beyond the stats it comes down to personal preference…

I have not carried the newer version but hauled the old SA 80 around a lot in NI (back when the earth was cooling a ground fire was always light to moderate). It was like carrying an 11lb pistol in your right hand. Torture, especially for someone with little girl wrists like me. The SLR was much easier to carry for longer periods of time as you share the load between hands. A longer barrel also lets you scan, cover arcs and engage from cover better than the 'assault pistol', which forces you into the open more often.

It was also minus a forward bolt assist, so in some cases its puny return spring caused 'dead man's click' in some firefights, which certainly eroded our confidence with the weapon. We issued out the Bren Guns to help address this confidence problem.

In Norway it was handy, being short, but more prone to finicky stoppages than the good ol' SLR for the heroic ski troops of the high arctic and low temperatures. Or the C7/ M16 for that matter, which I trialled during one winter deployment.

And I note that no one else in the world has bothered to waste their money on the SA 80, even after the various (horrendously expensive) HK rebuilds.

Again, the UK SoF, and anyone else who has a choice in the matter, use the C7 and it's variants vs. the SA80. A true test of relative uselessness.

 

[crowbag]

A longer barrel also lets you scan, cover arcs and engage from cover better than the 'assault pistol', which forces you into the open more often.

Again, the UK SoF, and anyone else who has a choice in the matter, use the C7 and it's variants vs. the SA80. A true test of relative uselessness.

Good points. I hadn't thought about the shorter barrel forcing you into the open more from cover. I know I'd rather poke my head over a parapet to fire a C7 than an SA80 in terms of not exposing myself.

I did really like the UGL (HK AG36) as it felt more balanced than the front heavy C7/203 combo. Also the breech opening to the left was easier to operate, as well as a proper pistol grip and breech opening button. Doesn't really make the argument for the rifle as a whole though. 

Really makes you wonder about the procurement process over at the MOD...doesn't seem like the best call they have ever made. Would be interesting to get into the details of their rationale...

 

[Old Sweat]

It seems to me that the British Army was developing a .280 cal bull pup rifle in the 1950s, but the project was cancelled by PM Churchill in favour of the 7.62mm FN as part of NATO standardization. (I joined the Canadian Army in 1957.)

 

[daftandbarmy]

Really makes you wonder about the procurement process over at the MOD...doesn't seem like the best call they have ever made. Would be interesting to get into the details of their rationale...

It's main role was to ensure the survival of the second rate British small arms industry through shoveling tax dollars into Enfield. They even had to hire HK to fix the stupid thing for them.

 

[crowbag]

It's main role was to ensure the survival of the second rate British small arms industry through shoveling tax dollars into Enfield. They even had to hire HK to fix the stupid thing for them.

Yup. Sounds about right. And damn the consequences for those carrying it...

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yup. Sounds about right. And damn the consequences for those carrying it...

As per SOP.

However, they saw a lot of use in AFG and if the Toms there were happy with it, who can argue...

 

[KevinB]

I find it interesting that every Army that has used a Bullpup in combat is going away from them...

  Aussie SASR are actively teaching their Big Army units why the AusSteyr in a steaming turd - and FN is discontinuing the F2000.

And the CF (look at my little Johnny he's the only one in step) is going the other way.

:

 

[Mr. St-Cyr]

Because of that weird prototype we saw? That is serious?

 

[NavyShooter]

That's been in the works for years.

I saw it at the Small Arms conference in 2013.

The fact is that the last 'successful' small arm that was built and fielded in Canada was the Ross has much to speak about our capabilities....

(Note, I own a Ross, 1916/243, (243'd rifle built in 1916) and while it shoots well, it's not on the same level of reliability as the Enfield....of which I own several.)

NS

 

[Mr. St-Cyr]

The horror... the horror.

 

[Spencer100]

"The Biggest change for infantry since WWII."

I think this statement may be a little over top but I know nothing.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/biggest-change-for-infantry-since-wwii-xm25/

 

[a_majoor]

I actually do believe that bringing precision guided weapons down to the individual infantryman is a revolutionary step.

While the XM-25 is obviously a gold plated "full meal deal", there is no reason that this sort of technology cannot be imported to current 40mm grenades fired from under barrel launchers. The effects of having an integrated day/night/rangefinding sight on the rifle itself will also be pretty amazing (most shooter error is a result of not being able to estimate ranges accurately). If that wasn't bad enough, consider weapons like the Mini-Spike Anti Personnel Guided Missile, which let you engage man sized targets from 1200m away. For most practical purposes this means that support weapons like machine guns can be held under threat by individual infantrymen (While a C-6 on the SF kit has a longer range, how often do you get 1800+m sight lines?). Since weapons like the XM-25, putative guided 40mm grenades and APGM's all have explosive warheads, this also complicates trying to protect soldiers and systems. How much body armour is it practical to wear to protect yourself from such an attack before you are immobilized by weight or fatigue?

The end result will be soldiers will be able to engage targets at extended ranges with a higher level of effectiveness, and use fewer rounds to get a kill. Tactically, this also means that exposing yourself will be extremely dangerous, so dispersion, movement under cover, stalking and camouflage will become far more important than ever. Crossing any sort of open ground in "Arrowhead" formation will be seen to be as relevant in modern warfare as forming a square. Mass firepower drove infantry into open formations, accurate firepower will render combat into an increasingly deadly game of hide and seek.

 

[NavyShooter]

The inability to accurately estimate ranges correctly is one of the factors that drove the US to investigate the original SCHV (Small Caliber High Velocity) program, which led to the various Flechette based systems that were experimented on in the 60's (mostly). 

The extremely light but long flechettes were VERY flat shooting, (I'll have to go back to the book to get the trajectory)

The long flat trajectory increased the PH (Probability to Hit) and the speed of the projectile did the same, both by reducing aiming errors due to trajectory/range issues, but also because of the shorter time of flight against moving targets.

This was the same project that developped some of the initial duplex rounds, with multiple bullets in the same cartridge case, usually one correctly aligned with the bore, the other deliberately designed to offset from the first to give a 'pattern' rather than a group.

NS

 

[NavyShooter]

http://www.thegunzone.com/spiw.html

The SPIW, the Deadliest weapon that never was.


This rifle was designed to feed from the front magazine first, then the rear, giving a larger capacity:

This one has an integrated fore-end grenade launcher and a rotary/drum magazine for the flechette rounds:

And another variation on the theme:

 

[a_majoor]

Probably the biggest change is that every program from SPIW to the ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) in the 1990's all depended on mechanical improvements to the weapons and ammunition. SPIW used hypervelocity flechettes, and the HK G11 from the ACR program used a breech mechanism which looked like clockwork to cycle at an incredible 2100 RPM in burst mode, so the shooter only felt the recoil impulse after the last of three rounds left the barrel.

Post 1990, we are now looking at advances in computerization (rugged, low cost and low energy use devices), communications (between the sight and the round, in the case of the XM-25) and integration with other systems (using UAV's to spot targets, for example) to increase pK and other performance metrics in the weapons. Firing a missile at an identified shooter may seem a bit extreme, but if the shooter is otherwise not targetable because of cover, the presence of civilians or collateral damage concerns, then a missile like Mini-Spike is much preferable to blasting the shooter out with a tank round, artillery or unguided bursts of GPMG fire (Mini-Spike can have the warhead deactivated by the operator, leaving the target to be struck by a 4kg projectile moving at high sub-sonic speeds.)

Now we need to ally these advances in computerization with already known technologies and management techniques to make these cheap and ubiquitous. Remember your "smartphone" has many of the features of these devices like communications through multiple means (cell and WiFi), GPS tracking, internal accelerometers, cameras etc. in a $600 device. Mass producing APGM's and "smart" 40mm grenades to bring the cost down to mass issue would be a huge game changer on the battlefield.

 

[C.Balogh]

Does anyone have any tips on maintaining noise discipline with the C9 on a recce patrol other than those soft 100 round ammo packs? Or does anyone know where to get those?

 

[brihard]

Does anyone have any tips on maintaining noise discipline with the C9 on a recce patrol other than those soft 100 round ammo packs? Or does anyone know where to get those?

If you're stuck with the 200rd plastic boxes, kinda hard... And then with those every once in a while you'll get the 'bungee box'; the unmistakeable 'dzzzzzzzzzzzzzzunk!' of a box detaching from the gun and dropping to the ground with all the rounds comming out, invariably followed right away by savage profanity.

The best trick is grab a bit of cardboard from your IMPs. Crack open the plastic ammo boxes, and line both of the large flat faces on the inside with a thin bit of cardboard. It dulls some of the clacking of the rounds inside. You can also stick a small bit of cardboard underneath the latch on the plastic ammo box when it's mounted to the gun, this will help to keep it secure. No way about it though; carrying a C9 on anything where stealth is required sucks.

 

[childs56]

Pull about 20rds out of the box break the link place the rest of the ammo in carrier pouch. Practice contact drills where you can pull the remainder of the ammo out of the pouch quickly and either reload and or connect the links. you still have to be aware of your 20rds clinking and clacking. but its a bit more manageable.
As for those plastic boxes, just pull all your ammo out of them and just carry the ammo in soft pouches.

If your COC will not let you do that then the cardboard will lesson the noise

 

[Jarnhamar]

Does anyone have any tips on maintaining noise discipline with the C9 on a recce patrol other than those soft 100 round ammo packs? Or does anyone know where to get those?

Those boxes are in the system.  I asked my unit to order some and they came in in a few weeks from Montreal.  You can approach  your QM and see if they can order some.

 

[brihard]

Re: soft bags, this may be one of those things the refs take for granted that reserve units generally don't have.