U.S Army plans to adopt new caliber infantry rifle

[charadam]

We repeatedly say that those who ignore historical mistakes are fated to repeat them.

We also say that no plan survives contact with the enemy.

So whatever calibre/rifle we decide upon will become obsolescent as soon as it is used in battle.

Therefore we must bring back the 7.62mm NATO L1A1 SLR as it cannot be beaten.

The noise you heard was me ducking into cover.

[DaveB]

Sorry, while I agree with your choice of calibre, I cannot agree with your choice of rifle.

The L1A1 and its cousins are all products of the 1940s. While sturdy, the design is not user-friendly, especially when training new recruits. If you do the vector diagrams, you will see that the breech block rises up when it unlocks, and then with the recoil spring angling downward into the butt stock, it is actually designed to rear up and beat you in the face.

No - an AR-10 based platform, with its straight-line recoil, and massive numbers of accessories, is a far better choice.

[Sim G]

Therefore we must bring back the 7.62mm NATO L1A1 SLR as it cannot be beaten.

The noise you heard was me ducking into cover.

Like Dave, I also have to disagree. I thought the L1A1/FAL was an awful weapon!! Cumbersome, ungainly, ergonomics non existent. And despite the unsung genius that Dieudonné Saive obviously was, what on earth possessed him to put the rear and fore sight on two half’s of a rifle which separate?! No wonder marksmanship scores went through the roof when the SA80 was adopted.

As opposed to new weapon/cartridge, perhaps they need to concentrate on marksmanship training. My God son has just left the British army after seven years an infantry soldier. He honestly reckoned he had no more than a dozen days on the range and five of those were before specific deployments!

No good have a perfect gun and cartridge if no fecker can use it effectively!

[GeeRam]

Therefore we must bring back the 7.62mm NATO L1A1 SLR as it cannot be beaten.

The noise you heard was me ducking into cover.

As opposed to new weapon/cartridge, perhaps they need to concentrate on marksmanship training. My God son has just left the British army after seven years an infantry soldier. He honestly reckoned he had no more than a dozen days on the range and five of those were before specific deployments!

No good have a perfect gun and cartridge if no fecker can use it effectively!

Exactly.....the opposite of what stopped the German advance at Mons in 1914.

The trouble is, Govt/MoD doesn't want to spend the money on ammo supplies to do the same today, not to mention armourer support and range support...and etc.,etc.

It the same reason why it wanted to delete the cannon on the RAF's Eurofighter Typhoon. It was then told that it had to have it as the a/c has been designed for it to be equipped with it in terms of c of g and everything. So, MoD decided instead that while it had to have the cannon fitted, it won't be buying ammo for it to be used on grounds of cost saving....
Then Afgan conflict experience forced them into an embarrassing U-turn decision 7 years later when the similar embarrassing lack of guns on the RAF Harriers meant UK forces had to rely a lot more on USAF A-10's.

[DaveB]

Yeah, that Typhoon cannon has to be the most embarrassing cock-up in a very long time. What kind of moron buys a fighter without a cannon? Did they learn nothing from the F4 debacle of the 60s?

We had a similar situation in Canada where the Chief of the Defence Force said the main battle tank was no longer needed and Canada was getting rid of them. Then along came Afghanistan, and they replaced their complete outfit of Leopard 1s with Leopard 2A6s. The guy didn't even have the guts to front up and admit he'd been absolutely wrong.

[charadam]

I was involved early in the SA80 trials. The reasons scores improved after it was introduced are many and varied, including its high weight/calibre that resulted in minimal recoil.

Also, there was a period of intensive weapon handling and marksmanship training as the thing was introduced - probably so the device would not be perceived as a backward step.

My 7.62mm SLR experience includes in excess of 60,000 rounds fired in about 15 years. In those years I never once had the rifle lose zero as a result of breaking for cleaning.

Ergonomically, it fitted me and a cheek weld was easily achieved - something which I could not replicate on the SA80. Mind you, I am / was a big lad and not an 8-stone female.

Just my personal opinoin, but to this day I would back myself with an SLR against an opponent with an SA80 (or whatever it has now been modified into) at 500 yards.

[meles meles]

We'd back ourselves with a 6.5x55 Norsqueagian Mauser / Krag bolt action against your SLR at 800m +

[ordnance]

Like Dave, I also have to disagree. I thought the L1A1/FAL was an awful weapon!! Cumbersome, ungainly, ergonomics non existent. And despite the unsung genius that Dieudonné Saive obviously was, what on earth possessed him to put the rear and fore sight on two half’s of a rifle which separate?! No wonder marksmanship scores went through the roof when the SA80 was adopted.

I thought the ergonomics were good on the L1A1, cocking lever and safety easy to hand, compared with the horrendous ergonomics on the SA/80.

[snayperskaya]

The U.S. Army needs to be sure it learns the proper lessons from Afghanistan and doesn't think that longe range riflery is the future of warfare.

Why not outfit forces in Afghanistan with a greater number of longer range infantry weapons in each infantry company and keep the rest of the Army equipped with M4s .

This is what the Russians have been doing since 1963 and still do.When the AK-47 and later the AKM were the standard issue service rifle it came to the Russian military top brass's attention that the effective range of an infantry platoon had dropped to around 300m.It was decided that a more powerful longer range rifle was required to extend the range out to 8-900m and the Dragunov was born.In each infantry squad there would be at least one Dragunov equipped Marksman who would engage targets such as officers, radio operators and MG teams etc.

In the Soviet-Afghan conflict the Dragunov equipped Marksman was invaluable for engaging longer range targets in the mountains and valleys......and is something which the Taliban are still using today to their advantage.

Even though the 5.45x39 AK-74m is the main service rifle of the Russian military today there are quite a few units that are once turning to the 7.62x39 round in the AK-103/104 as they prefer it to the smaller round, which they found to be lacking in urban combat in Chechnya and now in Dagestan.....in Chechnya the Russian troops were crying out for 7.62x39 AKM's and RPK's to replace their 5.45 counterparts.

[Strangely Brown]

My 7.62mm SLR experience includes in excess of 60,000 rounds fired in about 15 years. In those years I never once had the rifle lose zero as a result of breaking for cleaning.

Ergonomically, it fitted me and a cheek weld was easily achieved - something which I could not replicate on the SA80. Mind you, I am / was a big lad and not an 8-stone female.

That was my experience of the SLR as well although I was long gone by the time the SA80 came out.

Although now knowing a bit more about firearms design I do wonder about the logic of the sights on the upper and the lower......but as it never lost its zero what argument do I have?