• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Re-enter the Battle Rifle?

Matt_Fisher

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
3
Points
430
The New York Times reporter CJ Chivers has been writing a series of articles regarding Taliban and Afghan government forces marksmanship.  Not much of it is suprising, given the statistics on casualties as a result of enemy rifle fire, but what is interesting is that Taliban fighters are using WW1 and WW2 era Lee Enfields (some of which were Canadian produced at Long Branch) with more success at supressing and harassing Allied forces than fire from AKs with their shorter effective range.

The articles can be viewed here:

Afghan Marksmen — Forget the Fables
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/afghan-marksmen-forget-the-fables/

The Weakness of Taliban Marksmanship
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/the-weakness-of-taliban-marksmanship/

Afghan Marksmanship: Pointing, Not Aiming
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/afghan-marksmanship-pointing-not-aiming/

A Firsthand Look at Firefights in Marja
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/a-firsthand-look-at-firefights-in-marja/#more-17989
 
Just as interesting as the articles are the comments sections.

cheers,
Frank
 
We ought to send some of our Rangers over there to show the Taliban exactly how accurate Lee Enfields can be fired at distance.
 
Contemplating a return of the battle rifle should also prompt thinking about a corresponding change in organizations and tactics, like the ones discussed here.
 
Someone sad Battle Rifle?


Shortly after 9/11 elements operating in Afghanistan noted that the M4A1 even with our (KAC) MRE FF RAS, and S&B Short Dot was not up to the task of going from the CQB fight to the edge of the villages or out in the mountains, and while the 18" Mk12 Mod0 and Mod1 are capable in the accuracy department, that they where neither very handy for CQB, nor would 5.56mm, even with then newly adopted 77gr AA53 round (Mk262) capable of barrier penetration at range.  Larry Vickers did a segment on Tactical Arms to air this year where he talks about why the M4 was picked over the MP-5 for CQB, as to somewhat paraphrase him “ you sometimes need to step out of the house and make a 100m or 200m shot”, he then relates to the 7.62mm SR-25 EM Carbine, and the 7.62 Battle Rifles, “well in Afghanistan, sometime you need to step out or go up on a building an make a 400-600m shot, and 5.56mm is not ideal for that”.



We had built pre-ban SR-25K 16" guns, and some other 7.62 carbines, however they where not really designed for the “M4 type” roles that where being envisioned.



We came up with the SR-25 14.5" Battle Rifle,

14-5leftclosed.jpg


With the idea is that it was very similar in appearance to the M4's and not going to draw undue attention, as well unlike the majority of systems, it used the same manual of Arms as the M4/M16, so soldier who have years on the M16FOW, don't have issues relearning drills, especially valuable under stress.



7.62mm is more optimized in longer than 14.5” barrels and really wants at least a 16" barrel, and a lot of concerns about the reliability of the 14.5" gun were being given, so shortly after the 16" SR-25 Battle Rifle was developed, which was really just a longer barrel.

16inch.jpg





We had never envisioned a 7.62mm gun being run like an M4, and especially with a suppressor neither the 14.5 nor the 16" gun where at the reliability level that was desired.

_32Y6488.jpg

Especially suppressed, I ran the 16" SR-25BR at classes, and demos.
_32Y8734.jpg

IMG_0063.jpg



Accuracy even with the chromed barrel was always good, sub-MOA and a fair amount under the 1/2MOA mark.

It is a good gun, but in high suppressed round counts it got dirty and finicky.







Near the first quarter of '09 we started work on a PIP of the 16" gun, as well as the 20” M110.

High-speed video, lots of rounds, more high-speed video, changes to the gas system, and more rounds and video, a lot more stuff and changes to the bolt carrier, the recoil system resulted in the SR-25 EM Carbine.



At the same time, the optical industry was busy working on a 1.1-8x scope to give the user the ability to take advantage of the added capabilities of the 7.62 round.

SR-25EMCARBINE1.jpg


EMCGroup.jpg


EMCGroup29April.jpg

What we ended up with was in our opinion the finest 16" 7.62mm gas gun on the planet.



We shot several EM’s for over 1,000 rds fully suppressed with no additional lube, with no stoppages

We have done extensive lifecycle work on the guns, endurance testing etc.



We wanted to build the best gun we could, so if someone on a mountain top in Afghanistan or wherever else needed to have a gun that would go and go and go, it would.

  If he has to dump it in snow to cool it down, it would go and go and go.



With well over 50,000 rounds thru it, including a day where Mr. Knight and I stood in a puddle of muddy water splashing the gun to cool, we feel we are there.



Unlike our previous carbines, which we showed at SHOT (I have a pic somewhere of me holding the 14.5" gun at SHOT'04 when I was still in the Canadian Army) and never really publicly released for sale, we wanted a short 7.62 like this this gun to be our Flagship.



So its here, and available.
 
Kevin, thanks for the pics and info.

Mate, you've got the best civvy job ever!

You should be in contact with the DMO Lads from Melbourne (if you hav'nt already  ;D)

Cheers,

Wes
 
Kevin-

Looks and sounds like one hell of a rifle. Well done!
 
Kevin,

Interesting stuff there!

Any thoughts on the merits of a bullpup in a battle rifle or 'hybrid' i.e. 6.5mm cartridge?

Get to keep a full length barrel, but have the handiness of a carbine for CQB type work, and with a larger sized calibre you can cover a full spectrum of engagement ranges.

Kel-Tec RFB comes to mind, although just saying the word 'Kel-Tec' makes me feel unwashed, and the forward ejection mechanism looks like it could be problematic.

Although, at the end of the day we can argue until we're blue in the face about the merits of a calibre change, but given the cost (well into the billions of dollars for the US DOD, and Canada wouldn't budge unless a new NATO STANAG on ammo came out), it's unlikely that we'll see 5.56 get replaced by 7.62 solely, or both being replaced by 6.5.  About the only thing that would/could cause a major change from the current small arms ammunition is a move to something truly revolutionary like caseless ammo where significant weight savings could be had.


*edited for clarity...I'd meant to say unlikely, rather than likely*
 
All,

It's covered in other threads on this board, but there is a strong push to get a designated marksman at the section level in order to increase reliable lethal effects that would use something similar to a battle rifle.

However, for the masses, the "pros" of 5.56mm ammunition still matter today as much as they did 40 years ago.  Less weight = more ammo, and less recoil = more accurate shots on rapid fire.

You will not see the return of a full-scale 7.62 rifle for everyone because it is not the best way to go.  What you may see is one per section but that soldier will be a rifleman first and also capable of section attacks, room clearing, etc; he will not be a sniper-light.

Infidel,

I have a lot of respect for the capabilities of the SR25, but the SR25 is only one of many rifles that are being considered (AR10, M110, HK417, among many many others).  I am not knocking the SR25, just saying that there are many factors involved, not least of which being the sheer volume of purchase would almost assuredly require assembly in Canada.

Your points about different ranges are all valid (50 vs 300 vs 600m), but one all-inclusive-wonder-weapon at platoon level is unachievable the same way one wonder-vehicle is that would have a huge gun, carry infantry, fast, tracked, wheeled, good on gas, nimble, mine resistant, and agile.  At some point you need a tank, LAV, and logistics truck which is what platoon weapons will continue to look like metaphorically.  They will have overlapping capabilities and specialties.

Matt,

The intermediate calibre is not going to happen any time soon in general infantry use.  Not 6.5, 6.8, 7.0, or any other "best of both worlds" ammo type.  Yes it would be nice to theoretically only use one ammunition in a platoon, but now you have soldiers being less accurate on rapid rate, and machine guns with less power (yes I am aware that at a very specific range band a Grendel round out-joules a 7.62).

It's all moot because we have a NATO standard and nobody is going to move before Uncle Sam does.

As for completely different generations of ammo on future horizons, yes some people are working on it but the C7A2 roll out just completed so don't expect anything to change next year.
 
FYI

1) We also make the M110 SASS
2) Armalite cannot touch us in a performance based specification
3) Hk417 - Hk just killed the program, I was somewhere, doing something with someone, and Hk called to tell the user group.

We are not hyping the SR-25 EMC for general issue (outside certain communities) but it does merit a look for a Section/Squad DM.  The M110 SASS type guns are generally wasted at Squad/Pl level, plus it still looks like a Sniper Rifle (unless you have an all C7A2 force)




 
Question here for Infidel:
Does your weapon have the ability to allow the shooter to do a "battle sight" type aim from say 300 to 600 m?  You know, "top dot" for this range, middle "dot" for that range, and bottom "dot" for the farthest range?  (EG: 300, 450, 600 m?)

I'm not sure what the ballistics are for it out to 600m.
 
GAP said:
Petamocto lecturing Infidel-6 on Small Arms...WTF??  ::)

Not lecturing anyone on anything.

I am the Officer in Charge of Small Arms at the Infantry School though, which makes us two peers having a discussion.  My life at work is guns, too...as is the entire cell I work with including Bisley and Queen's Medal-winning MWOs and several small arms instructors who do it day in and day out as well.  Also, we are not affiliated / biased in any way  ;)

Infidel,

Ack, I just listed the first few off the top of my head without putting a lot a thought into it.  The intent was just to state that the SR25 is on the list of many.

As for what the rifle looks like, I can't go into too much info on here on how much importance I placed on the suggested criteria (how it's pro-rated vs other categories), but it's on the list for common-sense purposes to not make him an obvious target.  It doesn't have to look exactly like a C7 + C79, but generally similar (ie, no giant "hey look at me" scope).

Techno,

I am personally a big fan of multiple-range sites as opposed to physically altering the site (like the range dial on the C79) which takes IMO too much time engaging fleeting targets.  However, there is one person who is dead-set against them, who happens to have the ear of someone important.
 
Petamocto/Technoviking
Horus H27 reticle...
  Give you ranges and windage in the reticle, plus a BDC turret when you have more time, for more precision.

Failing that an ACOG has the range stadia lines both for bullet drop and the range stadia is a range finder in the way that the lines are aprox 18" shoulder at those ranges, so for the typical Infantryman it is 'plug and play'

I agree with PetawawaOromocto in that the C79 sights are nice on a KD range to dial in, but not really effective or efficient on the battlefield.

 
Infidel-6 said:
...I agree with PetawawaOromocto in...

Uh oh, my code name has been decoded!  ;)

I have the new British sharpshooter PAM and they seem to have no problem with a multiple-range ret.
 
The Brits put the ACOG on the LMT L129A1, I had a chance to shoot it when Karl Lewis was over visiting us last year.
 
I did not really want to go into the specific optics (day or night) of what  they used since my copy is stamped "Restricted" and out of good faith for our friends I just left it at "multiple range...".

They also mount a relatively heavy night sight ahead which may result in giant left bicep syndrome.

We're looking into a one-optic solution but that's a whole other 10 threads.
 
Clip On In-Line Night Vision is the way to go on a STATIC weapon system, however its foolish to use on a system while moving, hence the clip on.

Even small clip ons can greatly increase accuracy while in position over the PEQ's and Head Mounts, however the PEQ and Head Mount system clobber weapon mounted when moving or for keeping SA.

I cannot get into 'Advanced' Weapon sights, as I am bound by NDA's, however I still think we are not at the point that the ACOG type sights are obsolete.

I vastly prefer the ACOG over the ELCAN, I won the 2004 NSCC 300m with a TA31 and sent it to the Inf School for a little while to help out some friends  ;)

That said for a DM type optic, I beleive that something like the Leupold 1.1-8x scope with the Horus reticle is a better setup, as the 8x with reticle give you target detection and discrimination at longer ranges than the 3.5x,4x or 5.5x ACOG's, and the 1.1x can be used with the Red Dot - like an Aimpoint, if your in closer terrain.


The CF is dead set on the C79A2 and it makes the Baby Jesus cry.

I'd prefer a real optical trial, as well as a trial for a CCO rather than cheating the EO into the system, IOR buys are fine for immediate needs, but it gets a little stale when 9 years later there is no trial.
  Of course there was no trial to select the C8SFW w/o RAS as the C8FTBH/C8A3...
Hard to justify - just my 0.02


 
All valid points.  Keep in mind that the "Battle Rifle for everyone" argument is a non-starter for me, so this thread for my purposes is entirely about the sharpshooter (which I why I agree with you on the two-up optics being better for a static system).

I am not the final say in the matter of what site or rifle gets picked, but I have one of a handful of influential positions that can write up desired requirements for such systems.

We had quite a bit of expertise at last winter's Small Arms Working Group and sharpshooter was the topic discussed more than any other.  As I mentioned a few posts ago, there is one other influential person who is pretty fixated on single post aiming sites that require external mods to change ranges, but all I could do was present the other side.

It is very easy to spot those who live their life in a range environment vs those with a combat focus.  I will be the first to admit that I haven't been in 100 TICs, but I am smart enough to know that everything we do should be combat driven and not range driven. 

Some people are quire content to recommend a 5.56 sharpshooter with a site that requires 15 seconds worth of dialing in to hit something at 600m vs a 7.62 + multiple range site that would require 2 seconds to hit the same fleeting target.

But as I said your points are valid because this guy is still a soldier-first, not a semi-sniper.  We have to give him a weapon that he can still do section attacks and room clearing with.
 
Tag.

The idea of of a 16"-18" 7.62 platform with a 1.1-8x optic on top really appeals to me. Even for non infantry types.
 
Back
Top