New British Army Rifle?

[Fedaykin]

huntervixen as I said earlier the prototype L85 was no wonder rifle prior to the value engineering exercise at ROF. RSAF Enfield made a number of fundamental mistakes adapting the AR-18 design and the XL64/65/70 prototypes had numerous faults plus the outright theft of Sterling Armaments parts to make those prototypes.

[huntervixen]

Indeed, not suggesting the prototypes were amazing, (with the exception of the LSW version, that should have been scrubbed very early on) but a lot better than the supposed "finished product A1".

Sad that official pilfering from Sterling was was nothing new, they started manufacturing the L2 SMG at Fazakerley without the permission of Sterling and they did the same with Webley in the 1920's and again in the 30's!

At least (sadly) there is no factory to build pilfered propriety rights in anymore!

[Fedaykin]

Therein is the rub, for any new rifle to be produced in the UK even using subcontracted parts requires an investment in a facility that probably won't have a long term future. Even if they matched the L85 order of 300 thousand rifles I don't see it being sustained beyond that. I can more conceive something being assembled CKD from foreign manufactured parts with some sub component assembly here.

The L85 debacle owes much to a factory that was in effect obsolete trying to build a rifle using concepts that were alien to them combined with the ongoing saga of privatisation of government owned property. RSAF Enfield was on prime real estate very attractive to developers.

I wonder if British Aerospace/ROF rather than setting up a new facility in Nottingham during the 80's (then later to another new facility in Barrow)had instead purchased the Sterling Armaments Company that was by then building the interesting AR-18 derived SAR-87 (kind of as it also owes much to Sterlings own Light Automatic Rifle design) they could of moved production to Dagenham to a factory with a workforce that had experience with the core design and could have no doubt done much of what H&K did many years and millions of pounds later with the A2. They would of also gained access to the more conventional and highly exportable SAR-87 design allowing a better long term future for UK small arms manufacturing.

The SAR-87 is interesting as it is based upon the Singapore SAR-80 that Sterling helped develop, it was robust reliable and an excellent basis for any future development:

http://www.geocities.ws/psarms/SALitera ... rofile.pdf

Oh by the way before somebody points it out, British Aerospace/ROF did buy out Sterling in the late 80's but rather than use this resource they shut them down!

[FredB]

You don't need any massive investment these days. In 1985 I was in a European car body factory, looking at the transfer line which automatically assembled and welded a body structure. It had obviously cost tens of millions and I commented on this. "This is now obsolete technology", I was told: "When this car goes out of production, this line will be scrapped--it has no flexability." I was taken next door, where there was a newly installed circle of welding workstations, loaded and operated by standard robots. "This line is to build a new sports car body---but when it is finished, the line will be re-programmed and will build something else".
There are many thousands of CNC machines in Britain now, which can produce volume parts for rifles---compared to the automotive industry where I worked, it is a simple job. You need good logistics and an assembley and test facility. Suppliers need to be chosen early and to be involved in the final design for production stage.
Fred

[Laurie]

I also forgot to add but doesn't the adoption by the then Soviet block countries of 5.45x39 and China of its 5.8x42mm cartridge show that they have similar ideas and needs to ours?

That's an interesting question. Years back in the depths of the cold war, I found a thick paperback called 'The Threat' written by an expat Brit called Andrew Cockburn who worked for one of the big US think tanks, The Rand Corporation or similar. This 500 or 600 page book took the Soviet armed forces and worked through them clinically coming to the conclusions that (1) they were absolute cr*p and that (2) it was 100% in the western military / industrial (especially in the USA) complex's interest to do everything possible to play up the Soviet threat as that produced more R&D funds, new main battle tanks, ships, planes etc.

Now, agree or disagree with this thesis as you will - all old history now. What was interesting was that he looked hard into military procurement programmes and showed just how much money was wasted, how 'new and improved' frequently actually meant heavier, more fuel guzzling, less reliable, unfit for purpose etc - especially in the field of warplanes, the F16 Falcon excepted.

He spent a lot of pages clinically dismembering the pre-delivery claims v actual performance of swing-wing military aircraft, in particular the American F111 bomber. There is a wonderful quote he gives about this US military project given to him by a retired USAF three-star general on the lines of:

"You know, only one good thing came out of the whole mess - the damnfool Russians went and copied us and wasted even more time and money on it which they could afford even less!"

So, that raises the question in my mind at any rate on the 5.45x39mm. Did the Soviets do the work and introduce a sub-calibre cartridge for their main battle rifle because it really was a good idea and improved the AK-series performance in the field, or did they do so because NATO had? Certainly, the 7.62X39mm M43 is no great performer by 21st century standards and the 6.8mm SPC team had little trouble producing a more effective round than it. Any ex Russian Airborne troopers with Afghanistan experience on the forum?(No, thought not - and anyone who is wouldn't ever sensibly announce that fact publicly in this day and age.)

[ordnance]

Poor balance ? Try using it properly. Yes, it's poor for drill. In combat the weight is where it needs to be, close in. It's easy to carry, especially in CCW*. See comment about accuracy above.

That's the spin put out by the MOD, its weight helps accuracy follow that logic why not make it heavier and make it more accurate. All the weapons designers are going for making infantry rifles lighter using plastics etc. As for reliability after spending millions basically changing every major component its hardly something to shout about. Pin point accuracy is not a requirement for an assault rifle, the most used assault rifle in history the AK / 47 is not renowned for its accuracy. As for other soldiers wanting to use them they couldn't give them away, as the number of sales of the rifle to other countries show.

Pretty much puts to bed a lot of what has been said about the rifle. Good shout.

One person's view doesn't change the well known and documented facts, that as a rifle its being a costly disaster from start to finish.

[Laurie]

You don't need any massive investment these days. In 1985 I was in a European car body factory, looking at the transfer line which automatically assembled and welded a body structure. It had obviously cost tens of millions and I commented on this. "This is now obsolete technology", I was told: "When this car goes out of production, this line will be scrapped--it has no flexability." I was taken next door, where there was a newly installed circle of welding workstations, loaded and operated by standard robots. "This line is to build a new sports car body---but when it is finished, the line will be re-programmed and will build something else".
There are many thousands of CNC machines in Britain now, which can produce volume parts for rifles---compared to the automotive industry where I worked, it is a simple job. You need good logistics and an assembley and test facility. Suppliers need to be chosen early and to be involved in the final design for production stage.
Fred

Funny thing how everybody mentions the flexibility of CNC machining and so how you could build 'anything' easily in the firearms field assuming you've got a sound design to copy in the first place. As a non-engineer it makes sense to me. However, Terry Wieland in his book Dangerous Game Rifles (2nd ed) goes into this in the form of manufacturing new copies of the 'Magnum Mauser', the slightly longer version of the '98 action and still the Holy Grail for the builders of custom bolt-action dangerous game rifles. With the supply of originals long dried up there is a market for new actions in the white. Pre CNC attempts all failed as their costs were too high, but with the advent of CNC machinery this seemed a relatively simple matter. He says that yes there are new manufacture actions appearing, but no CNC production didn't turn out to be nearly as easy or as cheap as originally envisaged. OK, we're talking manufacturing what 200,000, quarter million (?) rifles for the British forces, a lot more if you can find other buyers not a few dozen examples of complex rifle actions, but it seems we're not as close to having 'dial a gun' manufacturing as we're led to believe.

[Sixshot6]

I also forgot to add but doesn't the adoption by the then Soviet block countries of 5.45x39 and China of its 5.8x42mm cartridge show that they have similar ideas and needs to ours?

That's an interesting question. Years back in the depths of the cold war, I found a thick paperback called 'The Threat' written by an expat Brit called Andrew Cockburn who worked for one of the big US think tanks, The Rand Corporation or similar. This 500 or 600 page book took the Soviet armed forces and worked through them clinically coming to the conclusions that (1) they were absolute cr*p and that (2) it was 100% in the western military / industrial (especially in the USA) complex's interest to do everything possible to play up the Soviet threat as that produced more R&D funds, new main battle tanks, ships, planes etc.

Now, agree or disagree with this thesis as you will - all old history now. What was interesting was that he looked hard into military procurement programmes and showed just how much money was wasted, how 'new and improved' frequently actually meant heavier, more fuel guzzling, less reliable, unfit for purpose etc - especially in the field of warplanes, the F16 Falcon excepted.

He spent a lot of pages clinically dismembering the pre-delivery claims v actual performance of swing-wing military aircraft, in particular the American F111 bomber. There is a wonderful quote he gives about this US military project given to him by a retired USAF three-star general on the lines of:

"You know, only one good thing came out of the whole mess - the damnfool Russians went and copied us and wasted even more time and money on it which they could afford even less!"

So, that raises the question in my mind at any rate on the 5.45x39mm. Did the Soviets do the work and introduce a sub-calibre cartridge for their main battle rifle because it really was a good idea and improved the AK-series performance in the field, or did they do so because NATO had? Certainly, the 7.62X39mm M43 is no great performer by 21st century standards and the 6.8mm SPC team had little trouble producing a more effective round than it. Any ex Russian Airborne troopers with Afghanistan experience on the forum?(No, thought not - and anyone who is wouldn't ever sensibly announce that fact publicly in this day and age.)

Strangely I don't think 5.45x39 performs any better than 5.56 nato (the round was popular among many US gun owners due to cheap milsurp they can no longer get, hell there were AR15's in it and everything). I do know that 7.62x39 rules the roost up to 100-200 yards and anything then up to 500-600 belongs to 5.56 and 5.45. Keep in mind 7.62x39 existed as result of the idea that ww2 battles were mostly fought in cities. By the Afghan war of 1979, that had changed. And we learnt the hard way ourselves too.

[saddler]

...and the EM-2 design WAS officially adopted...as Rifle, No.9
Rumours are it saw some use in Suez.
Then Churchill (the PM not the insurance dog) pulled it
Manny Shinwell pushed for it to be brought back...but sadly lost.

Further reading:
EM-2, Concept & Design - by Dugelby
Modern Military Bullpups - by Dugelby
Last Enfield - by Raw
& any of the other Collector Grade titles on The Black Rifle, the three FAL series volumes, M14, etc.

[Laurie]

The early work on range v effectiveness v cartridge 'power' was done by the Germans pre WW2 in which they came to the conclusion that the individual rifleman is only effective to a maximum range of 300 metres, potentially less so if a hurriedly trained conscripted man. This was validated post war in US Operational Research Department work for the US Army and was very much the intellectual basis for Project Salvo, the first go at the small calibre, high velocity based weapons system. On that basis, 5.56mm just works even in M193 (55gn) form. The biggest problem it seems with the current 62gn Nato (SS109) bullet based system was the specified requirement to penetrate a Kevlar helmet at whatever long distance (700, 800 yards or some such range). The steel penetrator insert degrades the bullet's lethality especially at lower retained velocities, hence the need to have over 2,600 fps remaining at the target. Conversely, barrier penetration is becoming more of an issue as body armour becomes more common on battlefields, but also the resistance afforded by heavy webbing straps and chest harnesses packed with AK magazines.

The original 5.56 M193 worked brilliantly in Vietnam in short-range firefights because of the very high retained velocities and massive explosive bullet disintegration creating large and complex wound cavities. As range to target increases, the bullet effectiveness reduces and the M193 'explosive effect' drops out at around the 300 yard mark. It is so range dependant that in criminal shootings involving AR-15s, forensic pathologists can accurately determine the range of the shot(s) from the nature and size of the wound track and how much the bullet fragmented. The current 62gn model should have improved on the 55gn M193 with its much improved external ballistics, but apparently not - and has now been seriously degraded in US service by the decision to go for a 14.5" barrel carbine as the standard battle weapon knocking 200 + fps off the M16A2's MVs.

Also, the 5.56 is increasingly used by heavier support weapons such as the FN Minimi. These have the ability to effect hits at much longer ranges than the individual rifleman's 300 metres, but a single bullet strike at 500, 600 yards may be ineffective as a manstopper due to the poor wounding effect and the 7.62 or other more ballistically powerful cartridge is required. This was the lesson that the 1930s German Army took from its prewar research - the infantry squad killing weapon isn't the rifle, it's a lightweight but powerful machinegun. So eight or ten men see three on the GPMG and the rest are there primarily to protect the MG crew.