I don't have a link but just got through reading an article in one of the gunzines regarding the British army placing an order with an American arms manufacturer to supply them with a large quantity of AR based rifles in 7.62NATO.

There is of course no way the SA80A2 will be supplanted by these weapons, but they have all been earmarked for frontline units in Afghanistan. Evidently their troops (just as with the US troops) have been coming across increasingly large numbers of suspects proudly sporting 5.56mm "tattoos" from hits that simply healed over.

This combined with the alleged discovery of officers and senior NCOs scrounging around for any L1A1s left over in armories, prompted the MoD to place the order.

With devolved unit purchasing authority now available to selected US units, commanders have been able to purchase suitable weapons from local gun stores, most notably Springer M1A1s and SOCOM16s - hardly an option for the Brits though, what with their ban on pointy sticks.

I was a soldier when the L1A1 started being swapped out for the SA80 and I can tell you that I hated the SA80 and loved the L1A1 and was very sad to see the big black beast disappear.

The weapon had power and I really enjoyed the shoulder kick when firing it whereas the SA80 (the early versions) felt like a toy that had no stopping power, was prone having bits break off (dust cover) and just did not instil the same confidence as I felt when I had SLR L1A1 in my hands.

I remember being told by one of the armourers in Tidworth back in 1993 that the SA80 only cost 47 pounds sterling to produce as it is/was mostly pressed metal and cheap plastic.

I am not surprised that “non-coms” are scrounging around looking for old L1A1’s those weapons would be ideal for Afghanistan in my opinion.

Interesting OP = starred!

If you could find and post that link that would be cool.

Did the article say how many? What constitutes a 'large quantity'? And were the weapons they ordered individual or crew-served?

Either someone thinks that the 5.56 doesn't have the stopping/killing power they need, or they're planning on executing either defense or ambush.

7.62 is pretty heavy stuff to be lugging around the mountains so I doubt its for assault. There's also a huge abundance of 7.62 ammo to be used. We seem to always be running out of 5.56, on the other hand.

Maybe they're planning on putting up more checkpoints that they would need LMGs for?

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe

It means that insurgents - who use 7.62mm ammunition for their AK47 rifles - back off and shoot at British troops from longer distances. Half the battles in Helmand province, where British troops are based, are fought at between 300 and 900yards

Well then, they need to maneuver and close on the enemy to destroy them. I'm sorry, but the maximum range of an AK-47 may be around 900 meters, but the effective range of that weapon is somewhere between 300 and 400 meters depending on the marksman.

Unless some solid improvements have been made to the AK-47 (which I'm sure there has, but not likely that insurgents are using newer ones) that is not a very accurate weapon. It's too loose.

I think the person writing the article may be mis-using the word 'insurgent'. To me, insurgent denotes militia. Poorly trained, poorly disciplined, and dedicated only to the point that they have nothing else to do. And fanatic. If the writer really means to say that the enemy they're facing is a well trained, well disciplined fighting unit, who can actually shoot, that's different.

Furthermore, you have to be a crack shot to hit a man-sized target from more than 350 meters away. I'm sure that parachute regiment (battalion) is pretty well trained, but come on, they're not all snipers, and they don't have spotters calculating BP and wind for them. They just need to fix and destroy tactically rather than relying on a heavier round that they might be able to hit their targets with. 'One shot, one kill' goes right out the window. Waste of ammo.

Overall, the cost of 7.62 rounds, and the weight is going to take its toll, and the benefit of more range isn't nearly going to cover it.

I see this as a stupid way of trying to keep the friendly casualty rate down for politicians, rather than a real strategy for destroying the enemy.

Candyasses.


[edit on 10-3-2010 by DeltaChaos]

Sounds like a theater-related adjustment.

Due to limited effective range of 5.56 NATO.

I still like the 30.06, watching the rounds hitting downrange from a WWII era Browning vs M60 in 7.62 NATO, there's quite a difference.

would it surprise you to learn that back in 2008 the US Marine Corps tried to place an order for 250,000 HK416 that too is a 7.62 NATO cambering and the number would put one in the hands of every active duty Jarhead...

what went wrong was congress found out and killed it... but I'm sure someone is still looking for a loophole

My dad was in the army when they were using the L1A1 rifle. He says they kick ass compared to the guns the Brits use now. One shot could take down an elephant.

Mmmm, zero in old English is nought, but these days its 'nill' as in 'nill by mouth.
English for 'tick tack toe' is noughts and crosses.
sorry to add to the confusesion.

Originally posted by DaddyBare
would it surprise you to learn that back in 2008 the US Marine Corps tried to place an order for 250,000 HK416 that too is a 7.62 NATO cambering and the number would put one in the hands of every active duty Jarhead...

what went wrong was congress found out and killed it... but I'm sure someone is still looking for a loophole

That would be the HK417, the 416 is the smaller 5.56mm weapon - interesting side note, the HK416 was used to wax those Somali pirates in the lifeboat.

The HK416/417 is the weapon of choice in my biased opinion.

I wish the US or at least its allies would really get the 6.8 SPC into play. I love that round.