05-08-2012, 05:44 PM
stanc Wrote:What about the assertion that "it is bad for morale when troops are unable to respond effectively with their [5.56] rifles on half the occasions when they come under fire"?
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf
One of the problems with the British perspective is that they don't really use 5.56 NATO as we understand it, unless something has changed with the logistics chain. What I mean by that is that they found out early on with the L85 being the substandard weapon that it is, simply can't take the pressures of M193 or M855 loaded to the pressures that we're used to in the AR15 family, so the UK manufactures a lower power load, that supposedly only reaches between 2700 and 2800fps, even from the 20" L85. This was done to increase the service life of the weapons to an acceptable level. That's 100-200fps slower than a 14.5" M4 carbine.
Another statement we commonly hear about 5.56 is that it relies on yaw to cause the tissue damage that the Small Caliber High Velocity concept called for and delivered with the AR15. The tissue damage is really more of a factor of a thin jacketed projectile impacting at over 2600fps on the target. At those speeds, it doesn't really matter how a thin-jacketed, light bullet is oriented, because it will shed its jacket and come apart violently.
Looking at these clarifications, you can start to see how there might be a perfect storm for UK soldiers to see significantly-reduced performance from their 5.56 weapons. If they're only getting 2700fps mv, what is the impact velocity on a person at 200m? It certainly isn't 2600fps, which is often cited at the fragementation threshold of M193 and M855.
When it comes to the individual service rifle, I think the UK made a huge and costly mistake that they're continuing to pay for to this day with the L85 fiasco, and the fact that the SAS & SBS use Colt Commando variants as their main service weapon screams volumes to that assertion.
I am in total agreement that 5.56 does not make an ideal LMG cartridge for the Infantry Squad.
I am also in agreement that 5.56 isn't ideal for engaging targets out past 400m, and is marginal in the hands of untrained soldiers from 200-400m.
We already know that 7.62 NATO is not the answer, but neither is getting rid of 5.56, which is why I have been advocating the 2-caliber system of 5.56, a 6.5 grendel LMG, and a 6.5 Grendel DMR/SASS.
That said, we can't blame the extended distance limitations on low-powered 5.56 and crappy weapons alone.
I would like to see some citations for sources of complaints from British Infantry Units, to get a better idea if this is a solution looking for a problem, a widespread feeling among infantrymen, or a few anecdotal comments from guys looking to be important.
If the UK does adopt a larger cartridge, the Bullpup will have to go, unless they find a reliable way to pack 30rds into a smaller space. The LMT 7.62 MRP would be much better in Grendel, as would the LMG's.