attackbeaver
CGN Regular
- Location
- Some place
C8 For British Forces?
- Thread starter y2k
- Start date
Gun Plumber
Regular
- Location
- Pembroke, On
Yeah, from experiance I can't see any disadvantage to the carbine with a heavy barrel. I was talking to a sniper over there who, using a C8 FTHB, hit a man target at 800m. I doubt that that would have been a kill but it wouldn't have been one with a C7 either and that is as atypical of a shot as you are likely to see. Normal engagement for us was 15-150m. Beyond that med-heavy were used. The visiting Col told us that the C7A2 was needed for range and firepower. An Infantry WO was told to shut up when he insisted on pressing the point. It's politics and money.
Did HK write that link?
The SA80 failed every test after the intitial acceptance and user trials. The standards were massaged and the details spin doctored.
In 1988 the weapons failed miserably in Norway.
In the first Gulf war they sucked
from the LANDSET report (1990):
"SA80 did not perform reliably in sandy conditions of combat and training. Stoppages were frequent despite considerable and dilligent efforts to prevent them...infantrymen did not have CONFIDENCE in thier personal weapon...
SAND INGRESS
the working parts most vulnerable to sand ingress are the return springs and guide rods, the gas cylinder and piston, and the locking splines on the face of the breech. All these areas are difficult to clean. The trigger mechanism could only be cleaned by washing in petrol and blowing out the residue using an air hose. Many covered the outer parts of the weapon in masking tape in an attempt to keep the sand and dust out"
The A2 mods were in four main areas: Mags, friction, stronger springs, and extraction and ejection.
Addressing friction and things like firing pin breakage and can do nothing to help with sand ingress into the piston area and the locking lugs.
The cocking handle still reciprocates causing all kinds of failures.
The RG mags were a cause of failure, but the colt magazines worked. The HK magazine weighs as much empty as a full M16 mag.
The safety catch still jams.
None of the subsequent tests meet NATO requirments and require a ridiculous amount of cleaning and a weapon cover.
After the intial invasion of Iraq in the second gulf war the Paras and the Royal Marines agreed that the SA80A2 was an "unmitigated disaster" and cited almast all the same problems as the LANDSET report.
There is a reason why the 22 won't carry it.
Shelldrake
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Right behind you,,
Yep,, it is commonly known that the SAS and SBS deployed to the Falklands with M16s.
The US spec for A2 is 3050, M4 is 2870. With a 16" tube, the C8 should be in the neighbourhood of 2950.
That 150ish fps is not going to make a lot of difference. The US published maximum range against point target for M16A2 is 550m, and for M4 it is 500m.
On the other hand, 20" is a waste if people are only trained and programmed the effective range of C7 is 300m. The C7A2 midlife upgrade is just retarded - it is probably cheaper to send barrels and new poarts to the wpn tech and swap everything out. Think of the dollars of shipping all the rifles to Kitchener, hiring people to guage them and refinishing them. Labour and transportation cost more money than a steel tube. A worker at Colt Canada makes probroably 40% more than a cpl who is just doing his regular job. On the other hand, that gave work to a private company for the last 10 years.....But again, this is how government keeps these companies open. Just like what the Swiss Government is doing for swiss arms. Midlife upgrage, midlife upgrade.....We know it is stupid and cost taxpayers' more money but it is the game we have to play(pay). I would rather the government just be upfront about this instead of passing it as something with technical and financial merits.
That 150ish fps is not going to make a lot of difference. The US published maximum range against point target for M16A2 is 550m, and for M4 it is 500m.
On the other hand, 20" is a waste if people are only trained and programmed the effective range of C7 is 300m. The C7A2 midlife upgrade is just retarded - it is probably cheaper to send barrels and new poarts to the wpn tech and swap everything out. Think of the dollars of shipping all the rifles to Kitchener, hiring people to guage them and refinishing them. Labour and transportation cost more money than a steel tube. A worker at Colt Canada makes probroably 40% more than a cpl who is just doing his regular job. On the other hand, that gave work to a private company for the last 10 years.....But again, this is how government keeps these companies open. Just like what the Swiss Government is doing for swiss arms. Midlife upgrage, midlife upgrade.....We know it is stupid and cost taxpayers' more money but it is the game we have to play(pay). I would rather the government just be upfront about this instead of passing it as something with technical and financial merits.
Shelldrake
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Right behind you,,
Another photo
And another from the Falklands,,
The guy on the right has walked into the frame of this photo,, he has an m16.
And another from the Falklands,,
The guy on the right has walked into the frame of this photo,, he has an m16.
Last edited:
Undergiver
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sturgeon County, AB
Exactly the MV at 200+ meters is not there with the C8, I would love to just carry a C8A3. Just for the LCF alone, the lighter weight is also good.
The junk on the C7A2 notwithstanding the 20" bbl was determined to be the best ballistics.
The C77 round will not fragment AT ALL below 675 mps.
This occurs just under 300 m with a C7 (20")
This occurs just over 200 m with a C8 (14")
This occurs just und 250 m with an SFW (16")
IMHO 770 mps would be a better measure of "effective", based on Fackler et al, and the FBI kool aid, and our experience in the sandbox.
This occurs just under 175 m with a C7 (20")
This occurs just over 100 m with a C8 (14")
This occurs just over 125 m with an SFW (16")
The C7A2 is ### until you need to put someone down at further than CQB ranges. Choosing a carbine based on LCF (my first temptation as well) is not a reasonable decision.
Of course putting a mix of carbines, rifles and 7.62 mm marksman weapons at the section level might be a better solution.
And the SA80 still blows.
The C77 round will not fragment AT ALL below 675 mps.
This occurs just under 300 m with a C7 (20")
This occurs just over 200 m with a C8 (14")
This occurs just und 250 m with an SFW (16")
IMHO 770 mps would be a better measure of "effective", based on Fackler et al, and the FBI kool aid, and our experience in the sandbox.
This occurs just under 175 m with a C7 (20")
This occurs just over 100 m with a C8 (14")
This occurs just over 125 m with an SFW (16")
The C7A2 is ### until you need to put someone down at further than CQB ranges. Choosing a carbine based on LCF (my first temptation as well) is not a reasonable decision.
Of course putting a mix of carbines, rifles and 7.62 mm marksman weapons at the section level might be a better solution.
And the SA80 still blows.
1. 1962: The Us Air Force adopted the M16, 3-prong and no forward assist.
2. Early 1963 (I lost the receipt, some info here http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/United_Kingdom/SAS/Weapons.htm) : The British Army adopts the M16, 3-prong and no forward assist. They may well have been running around with prototypes, such was their keenness for the armylighty goodness. For the Brigade of Gurkhas, and sundry special forces, mainly because of Borneo. The RN got them for the Marines at the same time. Hence old pics of Ghurkas, Marines and men without hats with actual M16s, not A1s.
3. Late 1963: The US Army gets around to adopting the XM16E1 instead of the M16, because they couldn't do without a forward bolt assist.
Anyway the Brits were among the most enthusiastic early adopters of the AR15 platform. There was no crisis of unreliability in the jungles of Borneo either.
Undergiver
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sturgeon County, AB
The open-tipped rounds until now have been available only to Special Operations Command troops. The first 200,000 5.56mm Special Operations Science and Technology rounds are already downrange with Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan, said Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command. Commonly known as “SOST” rounds, they were legally cleared for Marine use by the Pentagon in late January, according to Navy Department documents obtained by Marine Corps Times.
SOCom developed the new rounds for use with the Special Operations Force Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s. Using an open-tip match round design common with some sniper ammunition, SOST rounds are designed to be “barrier blind,” meaning they stay on target better than existing M855 rounds after penetrating windshields, car doors and other objects.
SOCom developed the new rounds for use with the Special Operations Force Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s. Using an open-tip match round design common with some sniper ammunition, SOST rounds are designed to be “barrier blind,” meaning they stay on target better than existing M855 rounds after penetrating windshields, car doors and other objects.
wherermykeys
Regular
- Location
- Whitby, ON
Yep,, it is commonly known that the SAS and SBS deployed to the Falklands with M16s.
I'm not doubting that at all. I was commenting on the fact that he used the Falklands example to back up his claim that the British was issued the M16 before the US was...or am I completely out to lunch here? Am I missing an inside joke or something?
I Bet the Brits actually CLEANED their rifles in Borneo unlike the Yanks in Vietnam
RememberTheSomme
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Read #### Culvers account of the M-16 in Vietnam and after. He used it as a Marine Rifleman and i would say if there were more like him, the US Marine Corp would still be issued M-14s,or equivalent. Great writing on alot of the teething problems like having slam fires on dirty chambers,changing powders mid stream being the cause, and having two rifleman having this happen in 5 minutes in his platoon during a firefight. Alot of problems being corrected while a shooting war was going on and the subsequent new problems following.
The engineers and other support troops being the most popular people because they still were issued the m-14 and the Rifleman wanted them. The M193s accuracy improvement going from 1/14 to 1/12 but the tumble wounding effectiveness loss accordingly.
Qualifying on the range being in the butts at the Marines 500 yd max riflemans distance and having the M193 unable to penetate the target backing fillers used. He said the Marine Rifle squads effectiveness was reduced from 500 yds to less than 300yds with the M-16. He states that the M-16 s accuracy was never a problem after 1 in 12 and faster. ETc, ETc
If you want to see where the AR came from and where it is today , it's a good read.
