| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:59 pm Post subject: New 7.62mm Sharpshooter rifle for troops in Afghanistan |
 |
|
New 7.62mm Sharpshooter rifle for troops in Afghanistan
It's also got the 7.62 ACOG sight with x6 magnification. 1 Para (SFSG) getting them first
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cybershooters
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4621
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Or Knight's Armament SR-25 as most people call it. Amazing, a 7.62mm NATO self-loading rifle, what will they think of next? 
I suppose we should be thankful they didn't try and get H&K to make a 7.62 version of the SA80.
_________________
Steve.
Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good job all the SLRs were scrapped wasn't it? We're laughing at those daft Yanks now for keeping hold of their M14s.
It strikes me that what would do well in the Stan is the Bren, but I have a feeling our leaders decided they would be better off turned into man hole covers and peace sculptures too.
I notice in that list of weapons used in the Stan there is no mention of the Minimi, which is strange. Also, is the 8.59mm sniper system some sort of gay metric rendering of the .338 Lapua? If so, why not call it that? Some people would call a .303 a 7.7mm if they could get away with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rob wrote: |
I notice in that list of weapons used in the Stan there is no mention of the Minimi, which is strange. |
It's mentioned as the Light Machine Gun |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I was getting mixed up with the SA80 "light support weapon", which is clearly not a light machine gun. In fact, it isn't really anything much at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cybershooters
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4621
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rob wrote: | | Good job all the SLRs were scrapped wasn't it? We're laughing at those daft Yanks now for keeping hold of their M14s. |
They didn't keep them, there's a critical shortage of them in fact. What happened is that during the Vietnam war the Army and USMC adopted the M16 and all the M14s were ordered scrapped and they were, even some that were still brand new and unused. (And the SLR wasn't accurate enough in fairness).
However the US Navy didn't adopt the M16 until the M16A3 came along in the 1980s (only the US Navy uses the M16A3, full-auto version of the A2, Sabre Defence has the contract for them incidentally).
So all the ones you see now being used are ex-US Navy, and they didn't have that many to begin with.
But you just have to admire the ability of the MoD to actually read a frigging brochure. Wow, there are guns that can be used to shoot Taliban at long distances without us having to invent anything.
E.g. the FN SCAR, 6.8mm SPC, Mk 12 SPR, Mk 262 77gr 5.56mm, etc. - all of which have been used by the US and turned out largely to be duds.
I spoke to Gene Stoner about the SR-25 back in 1993, he really didn't like 5.56mm, which comes as a shock to people who think he invented it (which he didn't).
_________________
Steve.
Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rob wrote: | | It strikes me that what would do well in the Stan is the Bren, but I have a feeling our leaders decided they would be better off turned into man hole covers and peace sculptures too. |
Why the Bren? For a start I assume you mean the L4 version in 7.62mm? (.308 for you).
What can it possibly do that the gpmg (or M240) can't?
Edited to add: Actually, you'd use the phrase 'ghan rather than 'stan.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Last edited by Mick F on Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james.mitchell
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cybershooters wrote: | Or Knight's Armament SR-25 as most people call it. Amazing, a 7.62mm NATO self-loading rifle, what will they think of next?
I suppose we should be thankful they didn't try and get H&K to make a 7.62 version of the SA80. |
It's actually made by LMT in the states and is imported by LEI,
It's a nice rifle, played with one at Shot, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cybershooters
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4621
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I stand corrected, frankly I've lost track of all the companies making AR-15/AR-10 copies, LMT do make nice guns though.
_________________
Steve.
Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Why the Bren? For a start I assume you mean the L4 version in 7.62mm? (.308 for you).
What can it possibly do that the gpmg (or M240) can't? |
I don't mind calling a 7.62mm a 7.62mm, but I can't see the point of making up some bullsh!t metric designation for a .338 Lapua, or indeed a 12 bore shotgun.
Anyway, it seems out in the Stan the chaps want something with abit more oomph than a 5.56mm. The Bren provides this in a compact, magazine fed light machine gun, rather more handily than a GPMG surely? Or I should say would provide this, if any still existed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | They didn't keep them, there's a critical shortage of them in fact. What happened is that during the Vietnam war the Army and USMC adopted the M16 and all the M14s were ordered scrapped and they were, even some that were still brand new and unused. (And the SLR wasn't accurate enough in fairness). |
Is that so? It takes a special sort of stupid to scrap a million rifles in the middle of a war, but I suppose that's what governments are for.
Years back I remember reading an article in Soldier of Fortune by Ken Hackathorn, who wrote that if the US ever got to fighting in the middle east, a 7.62mm rifle would come in handy. His argument was that the 5.56mm might have sufficed in north west Europe, or south east Asia, which are heavily wooded and/or urban, and firefights might never be beyond 300m, but out in the sandy areas you might need to engage targets much further out.
He proposed a shortened M14 I think. As I recall, he got monstered for his suggestion, even Peter G Kokalis had a go at him for it, but it seems like he had the last laugh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rob wrote: | | Quote: | Why the Bren? For a start I assume you mean the L4 version in 7.62mm? (.308 for you).
What can it possibly do that the gpmg (or M240) can't? |
I don't mind calling a 7.62mm a 7.62mm, but I can't see the point of making up some bullsh!t metric designation for a .338 Lapua, or indeed a 12 bore shotgun.
Anyway, it seems out in the Stan the chaps want something with abit more oomph than a 5.56mm. The Bren provides this in a compact, magazine fed light machine gun, rather more handily than a GPMG surely? Or I should say would provide this, if any still existed. |
Stop calling it 'the 'Stan' it's not. You'll confuse it with all of the other countries to it's north, east and south.
Length of the L4? Weight of the L4? Availability of spares including barrels for the L4? Come on Rob, I expected better despite 'the 'Stan' comment
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Stop calling it 'the 'Stan' it's not. You'll confuse it with all of the other countries to it's north, east and south. |
We'll probably end up there eventually, O wise one.
| Quote: | | Length of the L4? Weight of the L4? Availability of spares including barrels for the L4? |
I don't know off the top of my head, look it up. I'd say length about 44 inches, weight about 23 pounds. How does that sound?
It doesn't matter, since they don't exist any more, but if they did, they would be useful. It's established that the chaps need 7.62mm, and the Bren provides that with less hassle than a GPMG. A BAR might be even handier, but I guess that's just too retro, and you'll start asking me snarky questions about availability of 30-06 ammunition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The good people at Wikipedia reckon a MkIV Bren is 42.9 inches long, and weighs in at 22.83 lb. Not far off if I say so myself. They also reckon the Indians still make them. Might be time for the MoD to give them a ring, if we are going back to the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
