Any SLR (Self Loading Rifle) enthusiasts?

[abominable_scouse_monster]

I still cant figure out why the whole of nato chose the 5.56, I have looked for a answer and cant find one. 7mm seems to be the best all rounder when i comes to warfare. The M14 is a nice weapon too but for the average solder from the 50's-60's a little to big I fear, I am 6ft 6in tall and for me its ideal.

 

[santaman2000]

Not in my experience, I dropped one and dented the mag well.

Oddly this thread wants to make me post some thing, I am lucky and have ww1 letters from my great grandfather from ww1

I am sick of jerry getting in our cuts and then having pistols they can fight with, can you George get me a pistol from work?"

3 weeks later my granddad took ownership of two sawn off shotguns, two weeks later according to family records 20 of them landed and where given to his mates all of them sporting guns cut down to about 12in barrels an stubby stocks, my dad rembers in the late 50's his dad chucking his pare and a few other weapons in the river. I am lucky and have read my family history and my god my dad would not be here if it wasn't for one of the shot pistols his dad tossed away.

Lets just rember that all weapons kept us free and no one gun won the war.

I wish I had one, not for use but just to say to my kids that gun kept us free, the only two things I have from that period of my grandfathers life are a watch and a trench knife.

Pics of the trench knife please.

 

[Itzal]

I still cant figure out why the whole of nato chose the 5.56, I have looked for a answer and cant find one. 7mm seems to be the best all rounder when i comes to warfare. The M14 is a nice weapon too but for the average solder from the 50's-60's a little to big I fear, I am 6ft 6in tall and for me its ideal.

They believed that the tumbling round would cause more damage than the 7.62, along with the weight reduction, the belief was it was a better option. ALLEGEDLY

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

Keyholing yea I have heard that too, but it is a myth a 5.56 can keyhole but not all of the time

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

Pics of the trench knife please.

I'll dig it out an take pics, its a 1904 Bayonet modified to give you a idea.

 

[brambles]

I still cant figure out why the whole of nato chose the 5.56, I have looked for a answer and cant find one.

Quite simple really - low recoil and lighter weight weapon and ammunition load ( or more ammunition for same weight ) for the troops.

 

[santaman2000]

They believed that the tumbling round would cause more damage than the 7.62, along with the weight reduction, the belief was it was a better option. ALLEGEDLY

The tumbling bullets did cause more damage. That's the lethality I referred to in Vietnam. That wasn't by design though. It was a miscalculation of the ballistics that was cure by subsequent redesign. All that said, the M16 with it's .223 round has been one of the most successful we ever fielded. It combined three earlier weapons (the Thompson, the M14, and the M1 carbine) into a single one that could be used successfully in all three roles:
1.Close quarteres assault/defense in place of the Thompon
2. Rear area and confined space issue in place of the M1 carbine
3. General issue in place of the M14

But I confess I have no knowledge of the SA80 or the SLR whatsoever (apart from the US influence on choosing calibers)

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

I dont really buy that, during ww1 the BEF tried that and didnt find it useful, they knew big bullet better stooping power. The only objectors where people who saw the test in the 1890s of big bullet vs tribal, with the .455 henerry rifles who shot BP rounds.

 

[santaman2000]

Keyholing yea I have heard that too, but it is a myth a 5.56 can keyhole but not all of the time

It did with all to often regularity in the early M16s. but as I stated that was due to miscalculated ballistics of the round and IIRC the rifling twist in the first M16s.

 

[British Red]

I've never known a rifle type that hasn't had an fte / ftf. Actually I have owned a few - but others of the same make & model have. Any machine can fail through wear, fouling, component failure, consumable failure, lack of lubrication or a host of other reasons. The mere presence of the "forward assist" on the AR15 / M16 platform shows at least one potential failure point. Heck, its a part of basic rifle handling drills to practice stoppage / clearing drills.

All military rifles are compromises - reliability and accuracy cause opposing design constraints - which is why match barrels and chambers are much tighter than "mil spec" - but suffer more extraction problems.

The M16 is a fine platform that suffers from a cartridge that, in my opinion, is underpowered for its intended target. Whilst there are many reasons why a .30 calibre MBR round is not suitable for all modern military purposes (notably weight and ability to fire accurate bursts from an unsupported position, there are probably better compromise calibres - indeed many would say 7.62 x 39 is one such - although its not perhaps the most accurate. I suspect a move to something in the 6mm range will eventually occur - bench rest shooters have been aware of the 6mm ballistic sweet spot for years. I hear good things about 6.5 Grendell. The probelm is of course that the logistical and financial challenges of changing the NATO standard round are eye watering.

As for the L98A2 vs L1A1 debate (SA80 vs SLR), they are different animals - a bullpup carbine vs a full length Main Battle Rifle. One is better at longer range, carries a heavier, harder hitting calibre. The other is far more handy in vehicles and buildings, light and versatile. Both have a place depending on the nature of the task. As a sport shooter, I would hate to use a big heavy rifle on Gallery Rifle (fast reactive 50 yard shooting), but I would hate to use a carbine at range.

Red

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

There was a lot of fluff around the first issue M16's want there like they where self cleaning?

I used to own a MK4 Enfiled and a Remmi 700 and tbh they shot the same, the only reason I chose the MK4 as a hunting weapon was the full stock and wood furniture.

Edit: I do agree the SLR and the SA80 are animals of a difernt culture, I have shot both and I dislike the 80 for the simple fact its a one tick pony, not because of the round it shoots.

 

[Itzal]

Well said British Red, The SLR would be impractical with the current vehicles the military use, current SA80 variants prove this and that is why we have cut them down even further for people in specific roles.

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

Sorry but the SLR and the SA80 where designed for the same war that didnt happen, one just happen to be more robust. The SA80 was made to fight in Europe when Ivan rolled down 50k tanks and infantry, same as the Challenger take heavy loads be durable then take the blast wave. As a General combat weapon its a farce, the MOD are seeing this and are seriously looking at the HK G33 as a serious replacement for the SA80. Hell my Sister is a Armed Responce officer and they have access to SA8-'s and wont use them chosing the G36c

 

[Itzal]

Sorry but the SLR and the SA80 where designed for the same war that didnt happen, one just happen to be more robust. The SA80 was made to fight in Europe when Ivan rolled down 50k tanks and infantry, same as the Challenger take heavy loads be durable then take the blast wave. As a General combat weapon its a farce, the MOD are seeing this and are seriously looking at the HK G33 as a serious replacement for the SA80. Hell my Sister is a Armed Responce officer and they have access to SA8-'s and wont use them chosing the G36c

SA80 isnt that bad as an accurate rifle, but HK are far better, Dimarco's are superb, but expensive.

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

Talking as ome one who has tried a A2 it's a POS, fussy about mags and even fussyer about ammunition. Something the SLR didnt have.

 

[Itzal]

Well I must admit there are bad points but I have never had any massive issues with using it, like I say the German weapons I have used are far better, then again the A2 has been modified by HK so thats probably why its much more reliable than the A1. New plastic mags are no better than the old ones, (which incidentally were designed to be disposable, and why a lot of people acquired M16 mags).

 

[British Red]

Ever used?

I've seen the No. 4s Fail To Eject though - the extractor spring loses its snap after 60 or 70 years

 

[santaman2000]

....The M16 is a fine platform that suffers from a cartridge that, in my opinion, is underpowered for its intended target. Whilst there are many reasons why a .30 calibre MBR round is not suitable for all modern military purposes (notably weight and ability to fire accurate bursts from an unsupported position, there are probably better compromise calibres - indeed many would say 7.62 x 39 is one such - although its not perhaps the most accurate. I suspect a move to something in the 6mm range will eventually occur - bench rest shooters have been aware of the 6mm ballistic sweet spot for years. I hear good things about 6.5 Grendell. The probelm is of course that the logistical and financial challenges of changing the NATO standard round are eye watering.....

I like the 7.62 x 39 also. It's not the most accurate as you said, but it's real shortcoming is it's reduced range vs the 223. However in the combat scenarios common since the Vietnam era that doesn't seem to have been a relevant factor as both still meet the requirements.

I also like what I've read about the 6mm (or a 243 in our case) and I'm thinking of getting a hunting rifle in a youth model in that caliber for my Godson and/or his mother. I agree that as a general purpose caliber it might well be better than either of the former two. For what it's worth the cost of converting wouldn't be as high as you might think. The weapons themselves are replaced in batches as they wear out anyway so a conversion over a 5 -10 year period might be very affordable. Believe it or not the single biggest line item in most modern military budgets is fuel. Fuel costs are between 40% and &0% of most military budgets.

One concern for adopting a new round now is the increasing increasing effectiveness and deployment of body armor. That hasn't been a problem as yet because we have been fighting oponents that don't widely use it. I'm sure they will learn soon enough though and in any case we may at some time have to fight another peer war.

 

[santaman2000]

There was a lot of fluff around the first issue M16's want there like they where self cleaning?.....

No they never were and still are not self cleaning. In fact the early ones often malfunctioned due to carbon buildup from there need to be extensively and frequently cleaned. Add to that the fact that cleaning kits weren't issued until weeks or even months after the weapon was. A lot of the problem was alleviated when they began chroming the chambers but they still need regular cleaning.

 

[British Red]

The .243 is a fine round - flexible enough for everything from Fox to Red Deer with a suitable bullet and powder. At its core though its a necked down .308 and so suffers from a larger heavier case than necessary for the military purpose. Given case length it would lead to a bolt reciprocating further than needed. A shorter fatter case make a lot of sense (like the 7.62x39)

If you look at the .308 (7.62x51) next to the 6.5mm Grendel next to the .223 (5.56x45) it should be clear what I mean - I believe a 6.5 upper can be mated onto existing M16s to improve the cost option and familiarity of the platform - the short length mean mag wells etc. do not need to be larger.



I haven't had a chance to shoot that particular round yet = but if it shoots anything like a 6mm PPC it should be exceedingly accurate



Red