Re-enter the Battle Rifle?

[KevinB]

I put the Magpul ACS on my personal SR-25 EMC.

It has a better locking system and a friction lock - so it actually works when shooting in the prone, and can adjust for different length requirements.

Ft. Benning did a stock test for a collapsible modification on the M110, and they chose the Magpul ACS as their recommended stock for that.
  We submitted our M110 SASS with Magpul ACS for a recent foreign trail, and the LMT gun had the SOPMOD and the users found it collapsed on them when shooting prone.


The actual Parker Hale bipod is a heavy bitch, robust yes, but very heavy.

The Versa-Pod is a pot metal POS, I've broken a number of them, and while I don't think the Harris is ideal, its probably the best option for thse guns.  Plus we've sent over 5k of them on Mk11's and M110's to the US Mil and have yet to have any major issues.

 

[Big Red]

Getting nitpicky, I know, but not a big fan of the typical AR-style stocks when shooting bipod. Have a tendency to hit the latch with the supporting hand, dumb thing collapses at inopportune moments, even though this guy's is fully collapsed already, and he's using an MG-style hold (probably for that reason, and/or to get a better stock weld.) Also not a huge fan of the Harris-style bipods - too flimsy. The old C3A1-style Versa-pods have their own hangups, but they're practically bombproof.

Most of newer AR stocks have a locking mechanism to avoid being accidentally collapsed. The LMT SOPMOD does not, so I put some rubber bands around the stock and lever to keep extra tension on it.

 

[KevinB]

Its the location on the SOPMOD and other M4/CAR type stocks that causes the issues.

Shooting prone off a bipod with those stocks and you have three choices, putting Mr. Hand so it eats the latch during recoil, Mr Hand sits on the latch and you hope it does not collapse (LAV had that happen on the M110A1 when I was in Bragg with him - which was our last straw on the SOPMOD for that role) or doing what the Brit is doing above, which is not ideal.

Even your "Ranger' band on the stock is not going to stop it.

The SOPMOD is fine on an M4 or Mk18 (though heavy) but its not ideal on a prone use gun. 

I end up running CTR's on light guns, and the ACS on the heavier ones.

Plus unlike the SOPMOD, you can actually take batteries out of the stock without removing the stock from the gun...

 

[Illegio]

I had a long talk about different shooting positions with the WMO I work with who has won just about every shooting competition ever at one point or another, and the way he explained it, your offhand should be the third point of contact under the butt so it almost makes a tripod.  That way you can just make minute adjustments with that hand instead of having to move your whole body.

Yes, this is true. It works best when you have a sand-sock or something that you can rest the butt on as well. With the sand-sock, you can then make minute changes in elevation simply by squeezing the sock with your supporting hand, and it also helps manage the effects of your breathing by allowing the butt to rest on a firm point of contact with the ground, instead of just your shoulder.

The actual Parker Hale bipod is a heavy *****, robust yes, but very heavy.

The Versa-Pod is a pot metal POS, I've broken a number of them...

Personal preference, then. Even though the .338s come with the Harris bipod we have (much to the great annoyance of the unit weapons techs) cannibalized a few of the P-Hs from worn-out C3s. I think it boils down to differences in deployment, too. For instance, crawling around in the sticks with a heavy, high-powered rifle favours the P-H because of its robustness and because there are fewer exposed workings (like the Harris springs) to catch on vegetation. For someone running around firing from more improvised positions with a lower-powered round, perhaps the Harris is a better choice. My preference for the handstop does not really carry over, considering that it would be very difficult to fire from the Hawkins with a 20 rd. mag sticking out of your gun.

I wasn't aware that there was such a difference in quality between the Versa-Pods and the old P-H bipods, though. I'm glad you mentioned that.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Speaking of the L129A1 the latest from the British MODUK:

Royal Marines are first to use new Sharpshooter rifle in Helmand

The first new infantry combat rifle to be issued to troops for more than 20 years has arrived in Afghanistan and is being used by Royal Marines from 40 Commando.



The new Sharpshooter rifle
[Picture: Andrew Linnett, Crown Copyright/MOD 2009]

The Sharpshooter rifle fires a 7.62mm round and enhances accuracy of engagement during longer-range firefights.

The Sharpshooter's considerable range takes it into the realm of sniper territory, but it requires far less training, being more similar to the standard service rifle than the highly-specialised weapons used by those in the sniper profession:

Royal Marine Sergeant Baz Evans of 40 Commando said:

"I have fired over 1,000 rounds on the rifle in training; accurately hitting targets over 800 metres away. The new Sharpshooter rifle provides quick and accurate fire, with the flexibility of using it in the assault rifle role as well. It's hoofing."

More than 400 of the semi-automatic L129A1 Sharpshooter rifles have been bought as an Urgent Operational Requirement.

The Sharpshooter complements the already potent range of weapons used by our forces in Afghanistan, which includes:
SA80 A2 assault rifles, which fire 5.56mm rounds;
Light Machine Guns, which fire 5.56mm rounds;
General Purpose Machine Guns, which fire 7.62mm bullets;
the Combat Shotgun, which fires 12-gauge shells;
the Sniper System, which fires 8.59mm bullets;
the Javelin Weapons System - the integrated fire-and-forget missile system.

See 'Operations in Afghanistan: UK military equipment' at Related Links.

Colonel Peter Warden, Light Weapons, Photographic and Batteries Team Leader at Defence Equipment and Support, said:

"The Sharpshooter rifle is very capable and has been bought to fulfil a specific role on the front line in Afghanistan. It is a versatile weapon which will give our units a new dimension to their armoury. It will complement the SA80 A2 by adding to the weapons available to commanders on the ground. The Sharpshooter's capabilities are also complementary to the current Sniper System."

Article Link

 

[KevinB]

The US Army will be releasing a 7.62 SDM requirement in the near future.
  They are basing it off the Arms Room concept in that the soldier will likley also have a M4 issued, and the unit will be able to chose to deploy the SDM systems or the M4's.

SOCOM also had a 16" 7.62mm System requirement, one of their elements has recently concluded a very rigorous testing, run by an independant test facility as well as internal and operation deployment, and that testing is being looked as a benchmark for a 16" System.
  We pured a lot of heart and soul into our Battle Rifle upgrade program and we are happy with the results.  Last week however Uk MoD asked us why we did not submit our M110 Carbine/SR-25 EMC into their SS program, and while disappointed understood that keeping it unvield prior to testing down here was paramount for us.

 

[KevinB]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayLandmarkBPerArvidsson.pdf

interesting read...

 

[Illegio]

Interesting indeed, although the crux of the presentation seems to be, "If you weren't such crappy shots, maybe you'd be better at killing what you're shooting at, so go train more." The other conclusion seems to be that in the 0 - 300m range, the differences in (SS109) 5.56mm performance characteristics between carbine-length and rifle-length are so small as to be negligible.

The charts on muzzle velocity, trajectory, etc... between the 14.5" and 20" 5.56mm are interesting, but 5.56 is a light round... My big question is what, if any, great difference would there be in average dispersion (group size) between the rifle and carbine platforms? Not directly related, but I'd like to see similar performance comparison charts for carbine and rifle platforms running 7.62mm.

I don't like the allusion that 300m is long range. Just because you feel the need to engage things at that range with a .50 HMG doesn't make it some vast distance, so don't use that as an argument for better training when there are more solid premises to stand on. That said, I am always in favour of more training, but it just seemed like a silly way to argue for it.

 

[KevinB]

For interest sake, both our 16" and 20" 7.62mm guns are are typically subMOA out to 500m, by 800m the 16" gun is around 1.25MOA, and the 20" is around 1 MOA.

With M118LR

 

[SeanNewman]

Kevin, off topic here, but looking at the photo of your rifle again I notice how relatively far forward your optic is. 

I know you have the full Picatinny top, but I don't even think that would fit on a current C7A2 because the front of it would be over the hand guard (or at least the ring).

Is that the actual spot you find it comfortable to shoot it at?  I know that some shooters like to really tuck their head forward, but is that the reason or do you just like it that far for eye relief?

 

[KevinB]

Its more a point of balance issue.  I have not done a lot of shooting with that optic, but my Leupold CQBSS was relinquished by to a KAC gun, not Kevin's personal gun  :'(
  I have a NF 2.5-10x that may need to go on that gun and put the Aimpoint back on one of my 5.56mm guns.

 

[KevinB]

Two shooters, 4 x 5 rd group avergaes at 800m for each shooter...

M110 Carbine 16" 7.62mm NATO

AGR-inches
AGR-MOA

C. /M118 U.S. Army Ammunition
4.924"
0.538

C. /167gr Lapua Ammunition
5.112"
0.558

C. /170gr Lapua Ammunition
5.47"
0.597

C. /185gr Lapua Ammunition
4.520"
0.493





B. /M118 U.S. Army Ammunition
3.992"
0.436

B. /167gr Lapua Ammunition
4.843"
0.529

B. /170gr Lapua Ammunition
6.226"
0.68

B. /185gr Lapua Ammunition
4.056"
0.443

 

[KevinB]

Petamocto - your PM box is full 

 

[SeanNewman]

Petamocto - your PM box is full 

Good to go.

 

[witchdoctor]

So here's my idea for a DM rifle. I don't think anyone mentioned this yet but feel free to correct me if someone did. Okay so we start with an FNC1 (one of my favorite service rifles of all time). Shorten the barrel a bit but nothing crazy (16 to 18in). Maybe even a heavy match barrel. Then outfit it with some modern furniture such as the after market stuff they sell for the SA58.  That will give you all the accessory rails your heart could desire and give it a modern feel and function. Don't forget the folding stock. We could throw on a folding forward grip to help out in case we are doing a little CQB and a bipod for those long shots. We had a scope mount for it as I recall, I think it was mostly for the old starlight but I think it could be used for something newer such as an ACOG, aimpoint or a full sniper scope. Can you tell I miss my FN!!!

 

[KevinB]

Easilier said than done.

1) FN's are out of the inventory
A) Weapons Tech's don't learn FN anymore
B) Shooters are not trained on them anymore
2) FN's are not the easiest to make accurate or reliable in shorter systems.
3) Vertical Grips are passe - they snag on all sort of stuff in CQB
4) Its a legacy item let it go...


A 7.62mm 16" SR-25 type system, (I am a fan of our stuff, but regardless anything like it will be easier to work on than a FAL or M-14 type setup), will asnwer the mail in a easier to employ, easier to train, and easier to maintain system.

 

[SeanNewman]

I concur with Kevin.

The proponents will state that we used them for decades and they fired 7.62 accurately so it should be easy to go back to them, but there are just too many reasons not to use them.

What you're proposing something like taking an old Dodge Challenger and trying to retrofit it in order to work with today's optics, when you could just buy a new Challenger that's made with modern electronics, airbags, etc.

The F1 was a great rifle for its day, but if you can have a rifle that weighs less, offers more, and is closer to what the troops are learning with the C7, it would be wrong not to give them that.

 

[witchdoctor]

My thought was since the Americans seem to have had a fair bit of success by dusting off their M-14s and giving them a 21st century upgrade, then why can't we do it with the FN. As far as making them accurate and reliable, I'm guessing I'm the only guy on here that thinks the FN had the C7 beat in both categories? And that's with the very well worn barrels my old reserve unit had. I still can shoot perfect scores with the C7 (When I say this please keep in mind they won't let us shoot higher than PWT1), but the grouping we could pull off with the FN were far tighter, and at longer ranges. They might not be current inventory, but my guess is that we probably have a ton of unused FN's in storage (Hmmm they'd have new barrels too then), all packed in grease just begging to be played with. At least that was the case for a certain other weapon they recently pulled out of storage not long ago. No offence to Kevin, but I think you might be slightly biased to your company's product. (I guess I'm a little biased to LOL) I'm personally not sold on an AR holding up to that kinda abuse from a .308 round. I had a personally owned Colt HB Sporter in .223/5.56 a couple of years ago. I did not put anywhere near the amount of ammo through it that the military would. Anyway it was showing significant wear in a fairly short amount of time. Even just on the range with the C7, we've seen significant failures and stoppages. That's just on the range. I can't imagine what the guns that see combat must be like. IMHO The FN is battle proven in dozens of countries in hundreds of conflicts all over the world. If we had some stock in storage to play with it would save tons of money, from having to buy new rifles. Plus we wouldn't have to go through timely trials to acquire it. I'm sure we still have lots of guys still in that can teach the FN to the younglings. Hell we can probably still dig up the old Pams too. That being said if we didn't have any war stock left laying around. I'd like to see what some of the offerings from H&K or Sig could do in trials against the AR type rifles like your SR25  8) If it does go to trials do you need any volunteers to shoot? I know Gagetown like the back of my hand and could probably drive their with my eyes closed!!!

 

[chrisf]

My thought was since the Americans seem to have had a fair bit of success by dusting off their M-14s and giving them a 21st century upgrade, then why can't we do it with the FN.

BECAUSE THE FNs ARE GONE! DISPOSED OR DESTROYED! THEY AREN'T COLLECTING DUST! THERE IS NO DUST TO DUST OFF! THEY ARE GONE!

(Sorry to shout, but it seemed appropriate)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They might not be current inventory, but my guess is that we probably have a ton of unused FN's in storage (Hmmm they'd have new barrels too then), all packed in grease just begging to be played with. At least that was the case for a certain other weapon they recently pulled out of storage not long ago.

The effective stock of FNs were not very well taken care of. They rusted and were ALL chopped and smelted. Except for a few museums pieces and the like. There are none left.

IMHO The FN is battle proven in dozens of countries in hundreds of conflicts all over the world.

As is the AR system.

I'm personally not sold on an AR holding up to that kinda abuse from a .308 round. I had a personally owned Colt HB Sporter in .223/5.56 a couple of years ago. I did not put anywhere near the amount of ammo through it that the military would. Anyway it was showing significant wear in a fairly short amount of time.

You must have had a real lemon then. I've have owned and built several AR variants and had thousands of rounds put through some with no ill effects or undue wear.

Even just on the range with the C7, we've seen significant failures and stoppages. That's just on the range. I can't imagine what the guns that see combat must be like.

Again, with extensive range time, I've seen the odd FTF or FTE. Most time it was the nut on the butt, not the equipment. Certainly no more so than any other weapon system I've been involved with.