British bullets too small to fell 'high' Taliban

[m24]

Latest Update: UK forces are to receive a semi-automatic 7.62 mm x 51 mm 'sharpshooter' weapon to combat Taliban forces engaging beyond the maximum effective range of the 5.56 mm L85A2 assault rifle.

In a USD2.5 million deal the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has contracted Law Enforcement International (LEI) to supply 440 LM7 semi-automatic rifles.

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.

To be redesignated the L129A1, the gas-operated weapon carries a 20-round magazine, is 945 mm long and weighs 5 kg. It will be manufactured by Lewis Machine & Tool Company in the United States, with deliveries expected to begin in early 2010.

Features of the weapon include a single-piece upper receiver and free-floating, quick-change barrels available in 305 mm, 406 mm and 508 mm. It has four Picatinny rails with a 540 mm top rail for night vision, thermal and image intensifying optics. Stock options include fixed or retractable versions.

Industry sources told Jane's that LEI beat competition including Heckler & Koch's HK417 (already supplied to specialist units within the MoD), FN Herstal's SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) and an offering from Sabre Defence Industries.

To date UK soldiers must complete a marksmanship course to become qualified as 'sharpshooters' and are regarded as being a grade below that of a sniper. Following the introduction of Accuracy International's (AI's) .338-cal L115A3 sniper rifle, sharpshooters have been armed with AI's outgoing 7.62 mm L96 rifle. However, the latter's bolt action does not make it a suitable option for a patrolling soldier.

With the majority of contacts occurring at either very close range or at ranges out to between 500 m and 900 m, the "only organic asset" available to responding UK forces in a small-arms capacity is the 7.62 mm General-Purpose Machine Gun, with MoD sources saying that "5.56 mm weapons lack the reach to engage the enemy at those ranges".

"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 .

Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... p?t=171300

Regards

[nagarifle]

heck man,in my days we could shoot 600m and still hit something. i strongly recommend 105mm to be issued to the gents in green(ladies can be given 50mm) watch and shoot

[Grumpy]

That the 5.56 is an inadequate man-stopper has been well proven in Iraq and is the reason that the US Military have been looking at a replacent 6.8mm calibre......basically the same case as the 5.56 but with a fatter, heavier bullet. Nothing much seems to be happening at the moment though. Frankly I consider the 6.8 a pretty poor compromise - better than the 5.56 NATO but still something of a runt at long range.
The .276 Pederson ? Oh yeah, they`re going to dig that up.......No chance in fact because it would require a completely new platform. Same applies to the British 7mm which was a near ideal cartridge but was rejected by the US military prior to the adoption of the 7.62x51.
The news media is extraordinarily poor at presenting facts - the AK47 7.62x39 is NOT a `powerful` cartridge.......better than the 5.56 in many respects undeniably but not in the same league as the 7.62x51. Not all 7.62s are the same........Not all .30 cals are the same and 7.62 is just the metric equivalent of .30".
With the financial situation being the way it is any replacement for the 5.56 is going to be some sort of compromise because no-one wants to incur the expense of developing a completely new platform for a sensible - and adequate - calibre. There`s no point in adopting a replacement for the M16 that uses the 5.56 NATO cartridge as the fact remains that the problem is the cartridge and a replacent that uses the same cartridge is a pointless exercise.

[mhr_srbh]

Actually, enemy combatants who keep coming even after getting hit is a problem foreign powers have often faced in the Indian sub-continent specially (typically owing to the tradition of consuming opium before entering battle). As you would know, early projectiles were lead bullets, tending to expand on impact. Then, of course, was the era of the smokeless powder which also meant somewhat smaller projectiles had to be used. These were the first jacketed bullets. However, once the jacketed bullets started being used, the British colonialists in India noticed the alarming tendency of some native fighters not to stay down unless hit 5-6 times. And I'm talking about calibers that were huge compared even to the 7.62 mm NATO ammo. .577 Martini-Henry and the likes. And that is how the idea for dum dum rounds or expanding ammunition came into being. Expanding ammunition is superbly lethal even in surprisingly small calibers. However, such rounds were forbidden to be used in warfare by the Hague convention of 1899.

The point I'm trying to make is, when you gotta bunch of shrieking, crazy as shit and stone-cold stoned talibs charging at you, the only non-expanding ammunition that has a hope of taking them down in a single hit is of the anti-materiel variety. Since this problem (lower stopping power of jacketed ammo) was there even in rounds like .303 and .577 Martini, you can't really blame the 5.56 mm NATO round. Blame the stupid bloody Hague convention, which was essentially stage managed by zee Germans. The 5.56 is a battle proven round and is quite capable of stopping (with the right placement) any non-stoned opponent.

[nagarifle]

The point I'm trying to make is, when you gotta bunch of shrieking, crazy as shit and stone-cold stoned talibs charging at you, the only non-expanding ammunition that has a hope of taking them down in a single hit is of the anti-materiel variety.

the point is not the stone cold stoned talibs,(i have not heard of them taking drugs, as its against Islam) but effectiveness of the 5.56.

Since this problem (lower stopping power of jacketed ammo) was there even in rounds like .303 and .577 Martini, you can't really blame the 5.56 mm NATO round.

you are right we can not blame the 5.56 rounds[/quote]

Blame the stupid bloody Hague convention, which was essentially stage managed by zee Germans. The 5.56 is a battle proven round and is quite capable of stopping (with the right placement) any non-stoned opponent.

how would you mother like you to come back with wide open expanded gut wound? she would not. if there are some rules in war then it should be followed as it works for both side.

and i thank God for the rules.

as you say the 5.56 is battle proven, that is, proven to be ineffective, and as you say with right placement is capable of stopping anyone, but then so is the .22 able to stop any one with right placement. and in battle one does not have the time and the opportunity to "right placement" but to place a shot in the largest exposed area of the body or any part that is hittable.

[m24]

Source: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010 ... cartridge/

Tony Williams, the co-editor of Jane’s Ammunition Handbook, gave a presentation entitled "The Next Generation: The Case for a New NATO Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridge" at the National Defense Industries Association (NDIA) Joint Armaments Conference last month. He has posted an extended version of the presentation on his website. It is well worth reading.

tmp_dropzone_image_100-tm-tfb.jpg

The presentation: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The%20N ... ration.htm

Regards