As a No. 5 owner here in Germany, and after following the H&K G36 saga, it somehow does look as if the powers that be don´t really have a clue as to what a present day infantryman needs and what the future battlefield might be.
Printable View
As a No. 5 owner here in Germany, and after following the H&K G36 saga, it somehow does look as if the powers that be don´t really have a clue as to what a present day infantryman needs and what the future battlefield might be.
If we're going to fight in European urban situations, the soldier wants short range, hard hitting close combat weaponry. In the Middle east, we've got to learn long range warfare again with larger calibre go-further weapons. Those are the virtual words of the Infantry Commanders following a week of discussions with FORMER Infantry Commanders and platoon commanders who fought in Aden/Radfan '68 (the last time we fought in the desert), Libya and Egypt in the earlier 60's. Following on from that knock-heads-together meeting, the first of the LMT 7.62mm rifles came on stream as an urgent operational requirement. We could have issued L1A1's on the same basis - as used in Aden. But we didn't have any!
Now proudly issued to every Indian Soldier who has the very latest technology at his fingertips, at cut down prices....ie Free Gratis courtesy of HMG. He has become the real winner, having taken on board ALL our out of service L1A1 rifles. Tragic!
I know this thread started out as one on No.5 accuracy, and I take responsibility for steering it towards the .280 British.
Is there a consensus of thought out there that thinks we had the right calibre with the .280 but the rifle required further development?
Looking the "coles notes" of the cartridge and it's development it seemed like it was a good performer, my only reservations are purely speculative based on feeding:
1. The size of a magazine required to hold 30 rounds in a rifle might be a little on the thick side to accommodate the "fat" case.
2. I am curious about feeding this round to a belt-fed machine gun, the short case with might not give the best setup for disintegrating links and the steep bottle neck may be under a lot of feeding stress in a LMG. If the solution was to have only a box magazine fed LMG, that would have been a serious firepower compromise. I suppose at that time the FN series LMG was magazine based, but the belt fed capability of the FN Minimi series is a huge step up in firepower. I am professionally very glad that weapon system exists.
If those feeding concerns were non-issue or could be resolved on an engineering level I am sure it would have been a good service cartridge.
As Darren has alluded, virtually all weapon design is a series of compromises and the .280/7mm would have qualified as a compromise -- a bit too large a cartridge and weapon to supplant the M1 Carbine, and a bit too small to compete with the 308/NATO. Like all compromises, everyone walks away with something, but still dissatisfied and often the compromiser gets whacked by both sides. And, as you alluded in your earlier post, with all the paraphernalia a combat soldier has to carry, the weight factor of all the equipment has plagued the infantryman for years. I recall the stories of men who sank with all their gear as they jumped off the LCVP Higgins boats during D-Day -- upwards of 80 lbs of gear IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentryduty
As Captain Laidler has observed:This is just one part of the compromise. Add tank warfare and today's IUDs, RPGs, etc. and we find the combat soldier in the middle trying to be equipped for anything and everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
A couple of months ago as I was watching "Saving Private Ryan" on TV again, I was impressed with the armament a small platoon carried -- bolt action sniper, BAR, M1s, Colt 1911, and more. But when it came to fighting the Panzer Tiger Tank, imagination and surprise were the best weapon as they used a grenade or bomb inside a greasy sock on the tread. Perhaps in the end the best weaponry really is more human than mechanical: trust, teamwork, mutual imagination, belief in a cause, and deep understanding of the opponent's mind.
Because of the superior BC of the .280/30, the 7mm entered the transonic region (1226 fps) at around 780 yards, vs. 875~885 yards for the 7.62 NATO cartridge. 7.62 NATO out of a G3 is more like ~830 yards.
Once in the transonic region US M80 ball is horrible (fan shaped groups), whereas the L2A2 and Australian F4 seem to do quite well, so how well the .280 did in this region would depend on the bullet shape, specifically the boattail angel and the twist rate. But if it did not show the instability some bullets show to side winds, then the superior BC would mean final velocity at 1100 yards between the 7.62 and .280 would not be all that far apart.
As I said my regard came when playing with low recoil 7.62 NATO, the recoil level of the .280/30 just seems to be sort of a sweet spot. Along with the lower peak pressures it seems to me that this cartridge had some real potential, lost because the US just could not drop the 30-06 ballistics and so had to redesign the 1904 7.62 Mauser cartridge.
Very true, and the issue of combat weight of a fighting soldier has not improved, we have lots of jammy gear but carrying it is a problem. There is a video circulating on the internet of a soldier I know personally on one of the later tours doing a scale check with and without gear. I can't remember the exact specifics, but essentially a 170 lbs solider with weapon and equipment to do a day patrol (no rucksack) pegged the scale at over 300 lbs loaded. Basically that is personal protective equipment, weapon, ammo, water and some little misc kit. Food wasn't something we carried a lot of, 1 or 2 stripped down IMP's at most, it was often too hot to eat much and water was far more valuable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaspriter
I have always wondered whether No.6s suffered from the accuracy problems reported with No.5s, so I got one to try. I have No.6 Mk1/1 XP278 and it is a very nice rifle to shoot standing, especially snap/rapid - I can get a better score at 100yds standing (85/100) than with my No.4 Mk2 (80/100). But then prone, I can score better with a No.4, which would be expected. The battle aperture on my No.6 is smaller than on a No.5 and maybe this makes a difference? The POA does not move around when it gets hot, and I can drop Fig.11s about 3 times out of 4 out to 375yds on the ETR range at Sennybridge in Wales when standing in a fox hole. As the receiver on a No.6 did not have any metal removed, whereas a No.5 receiver was a No.4 type with metal taken off, I wonder if that is one reason it holds its zero. I've also heard it said that it was over torqueing by unskilled labour of the barrel in the receiver in No.5s that was the cause of the wandering zero - the metal was both under too much compression and tension and didn't 'twang' correctly when fired. Any thoughts?
Whatever - if I was in the tropics, in jungle, with a dose of malaria and dysentery, and I'd just clambered up a muddy track, I'd much prefer a No.5 or 6 to a No.1 or 4!
Ian
Your test with a No6 v the No5 really isn't comparing like with like Ian! The lighter weight of the rifle was MORE than made up for with extra ammo, water and rations. Your only re-supply is from the air.......