The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

I think the answer is a mixture of calibres - NZ Army has gone to 2 x 7.62 DMWs in each section, as well as trading in our FN Minimis for the 7.62 version.

froggy wrote:but I just LIKE the 7.62x39 . End of.

Yep, they did it properly and pretty much made their own version of the 7.92 x 33.

Given we were forced to adopt the 7.62 by the septics as they wouldn't consider our excellent .280 British (7x43mm) which we developed after encountering the 7.92x33 in the Stg.44, partly as they reckoned it wasn't powerful enough. More likely it was just because they didn't invent it....
So, it would be ironic if we re-adopted their 7.62 round over their later 5.56 round partly for the same reasons. Mind you, they've pretty much re-introduced themselves with the modern M14 variantions being issued a lot more.

Daryll wrote:

A.J.P. wrote:

Daryll wrote:I was reading an article the other day that was talking about the new DMR rifle that we're taking on, and saying that maybe all Squaddies should be issued with it...

Do you have a link to that article Daryll?

It took me a while, but eventually I remembered it was actually a YouTube video...its just someones opinion...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMWt8McLIGA

Thanks for that Daryll - appreciate it.

As a NATO member, the UK will end up with whatever calibre the yanks decide, as per the 7.62 NATO round.

ukrifleman

As a NATO member, the UK will end up with whatever calibre the yanks decide, as per the 7.62 NATO round.

Sadly true...

And what is exactly the rational for a return to the 7,62x51 ? NATO was designed as a response to a specific perceived threat, ie : a European conflict fought in mainly Urban zones by motorised infantry which range of action is projected to max 300 meters and on average less that 70. For that doctrine volume of fire and short weapons suitable for both build up areas and limited space available in ACP is required.

Now that the Warsaw pact is long gone, and that Russia isnt a threat to anybody, (except in the mind of US wannabe world dominators) it is about time for NATEXIT ?

breacher wrote:They will settle on an intermediate calibre like 6.5 or 6.8 that fits the AR platform - mark my words.

6.8? Or do you mean .280 British?

7.62 ha! Dont make me laugh, its only copied the 7.5x55 swiss i use in my k31, a proven better round any day of the week!

Strangely Brown wrote:

breacher wrote:They will settle on an intermediate calibre like 6.5 or 6.8 that fits the AR platform - mark my words.

6.8? Or do you mean .280 British?

Good point Mick !

froggy wrote:but I just LIKE the 7.62x39 . End of.

You and me both Tovarisch

Joking apart a lot of Russian military units like the Spetsnaz GRU and the MVD etc are making more use of the 7.62x39 AK-103 and AK-104 as they prefer it to the 5.45 round.......hence why the new AK-12 has a 7.62x39 variant, the AK-15.

The Last time the US Army made a major calibre change was when they adopted the M16 in 5.56, since then the only changes have been to the bullet and the platform. Even then the platform that replaced the M16 is derived from that rifle!

This program will not lead to the replacement of the M4 or re-adoption of a rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO!

It will go exactly the same way every other next generation rifle and projectile program has gone, a bit of noise in the press, a trials program keeping a large number of low to mid level officers busy, a limited adoption and then eventually quietly dropped!

There is no way Congress is going to allow the expenditure required to entirely replace the M4 or the 5.56 round. The reason for the program is rather spurious considering the M855a1 round can penetrate armour. I wonder if this is more to do with the recent bun fight with the USMC over what 5.56 round they should be using.