The next French rifle might well be German ...

[HALODIN]

Wasn't the issue the weight of the ammo 5.56 v 7.62, rather than the weight of the rifle?

one of the reasons for the move to 5.56 was a lighter rifle could be designed

[ordnance]

Wasn't the issue the weight of the ammo 5.56 v 7.62, rather than the weight of the rifle?

one of the reasons for the move to 5.56 was a lighter rifle could be designed

Not the weight of the ammo, the recoil was the issue. A intermediate cartridge has advantages over the 7.62, lighter recoil making it possible to design a rifle that is smaler, lighter, controllable full auto, etc. It does have disadvantages effective range for example. The sales of the SA/80 says it all, one thing for sure no country looking to replace their service rifle will be looking at the SA/80.

[GeeRam]

We should have done what the Russians did, and copied the German's - and developed a Kurz round of a proper calibre instead, or indeed just adopted the MP43/4 after the war.....if we had, I wonder whether we'd still be using 7.92x33 today in a modern rifle???

[Sim G]

We did have a proper intermediate round in the .280 Enfield for the EM2. The concept killed by US/NATO.

[saddler]

We should have done what the Russians did, and copied the German's - and developed a Kurz round of a proper calibre instead, or indeed just adopted the MP43/4 after the war.....if we had, I wonder whether we'd still be using 7.92x33 today in a modern rifle???

As the northern monkey said, WE DID(sort of) have a better cartridge in the issued Rifle, No.9 = though to be fair, the Germans were the ones that copied the Russian WW1 rifle design in the first place!

The .280 EM-2 & earlier .280 EM-1 rifles were ballistically ahead of the game, but given the close proximity to a shootin' war the US especially was sitting on huge reserves of .30-cal ammunition alongside several factories with expensive tooling based around a .30-cal projectile/barrel & ammo makers with tooling for a .30-cal brass case...

While WE are not yet using a .280-like projectile, neither is ANYONE still using 7.92x33K

Us has been edumacating the monkey for his own good - much to his screeching protest noises & flinging of poo at the walls of his little den & we are allowing him to use our dies for his lovely 6.8SPC. IF he was further down the evolutionary chain he'd realise what a lovely little round it is & not revert to the varmint control round that is .223 as much as he does.

[BamBam]

The HK416 might be made in Germany, but the majority of development was done in the USA, if what Larry Vickers has said is the gospel.

http://www.vickerstactical.com/consulting.html

[pe4king]

This
http://streaming.britishpathe.com/hls-v ... 9.mp4.m3u8

[Fedaykin]

7.92x33K can be found being used in certain parts of the world still, Syria and Pakistan being a couple of examples.

Weight of ammunition was certainly a driver for adopting 5.56 NATO. Just one Steel AR-15 magazine loaded up with 30 5.56rds is surprisingly heavy, so imagine several 20rd box magazines of 7.62!

In the end Weight will probably be a major driver on any decision to replace the SA80/L85. By the looks of it there is no reason why more could not be made and it would have the advantage of retaining current infrastructure. That has to be balanced against the worth of investing on major production for a rifle that has little to no export chances. The ergonomic issue is a hangover of adapting the conventional AR-18 into a bullpup platform and is handled with good training. Weight is the sticking point, infantry soldiers are carrying ever more equipment and protective armour. The reason 5 million+ plastic MAGPUL EMAG were procured was to shave off some weight for the regular squaddy. Even with the use of exotic materials it is going to be very hard to shave any more weight off the SA80/L85. A fully loaded L85A2 with SUSAT weighs 11.0 lb whilst an HK416 weighs barely 8.0 lb loaded. When you are hauling so much gear around such as our troops are these days any way to shave off a few pounds is going to be welcome.

[waterford103]

The original AR18 / AR180 was made from thinner high tensile steel, the barrel was a lighter profile designed for 55gr ammo.When the boffins at Enfield took over the design from Sterling who had the license , they used cheaper , thicker steel and a target quality heavier barrel. , they then effed up the design further by bullpupping it which added more weight .The simple light folding stock became an unwieldy heavy plastic stock and a long trigger bar added more. The firing pin had to be made of the latest , trendy , maraging steel instead of the world - standard EN19 or near equivalent . Did the boffins really not know the properties of maraging steel ? One can only wonder .

[DaveB]

I understand that's why they're in this situation, but it doesn't have to stay that way. They've had time to gear up for it, the design exists, the skills exist, it will decrease unemployment, reduce costs for their military, create another export product and given the way the world's going, I'm surprised they don't want these skills "in house."

Well, they could always do what the Canadians very foolishly did: set up a domestic production line for the AR, pay well over the odds per rifle to pay for it, then allow it to be sold to the damned Yanks. Then to prove just how little common sense they have, they allowed their domestic ammunition manufacturer to be sold to another American firm. You know that when the ammunition shortage finally ends and it's time to reduce production the Americans aren't going to throw their own people out of work. No the first factory to close will be the Canadian one.