Assault Rifle article revised

[Tony Williams]

I have revamped my web article Assault Rifles and their Ammunition: History and Prospects to include more detail about early developments and bring the present situation up to date. URL is http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Createdeemcee]

Thanks tony, very informative, intresting too see the different delivery types. Interesting to see something with out a case.

[Little J]

Tony,
Haven't read it all yet (will do later), but I did see the picture of you firing the EM-2 and was wondering what your thoughts were on it, as I have been intrigued by its story since I first heard about it a few years ago...

Was Churchill right to ditch the 7x43 round and get bankrupt Britain in line with the US?

[Tony Williams]

I liked the EM-2. Although quite long for a bullpup (that's because it has a 24.5 inch barrel) it is very slim and solid-feeling - machined metal and wood! The gun felt very well-balanced to me. The optical sight is a league ahead of the iron sights everyone else was using at the time (and for decades thereafter). Recoil was more of a push than a kick, and the action was fairly slow (I was conscious of it functioning - not as much as with the MKb 42, but more than the FG 42 and various modern 5.56mm I fired on the same occasion). Sadly, I was only allowed a couple of rounds (ammo is getting scarce) so I couldn't comment on its controllability on auto.

I think it had the potential to make a very much better rifle than the FN FAL which was chosen instead, partly because it offered selective fire, partly because it was compact enough to replace the 9mm SMG as well as the .303 rifle. I wouldn't blame Churchill too much, though: as you say, the UK was bankrupt and dependent on the USA for financial support. There was little real option but to fall in line with the USA's demands. I blame those in the US Army who blocked the adoption of the 7x43 cartridge and insisted on the 7.62x51 instead. If they had followed the advice of their own testers and accepted the 7x43, I doubt that the 5.56mm would ever have been adopted.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[GazB]

If they had followed the advice of their own testers and accepted the 7x43, I doubt that the 5.56mm would ever have been adopted.

More than that, I doubt that they would be looking at 6.5mm rounds now.

Certainly Churchil had no choice in the matter, but it must be said that for an army that really emphasised marksmanship the 7.62 x 51mm round wasn't the worst round and the SLR wasn't the worst possible choice. Indeed the other two rifles adopted, the M14 and the German G3 were powerful accurate rifles that on occasion were found to be lethal at ranges out to 600m or so. Fighting in the desert or flat open grassland of the Falklands they would be better than the AK or 5.56mm guns. It was in Jungles and urban areas where the smaller calibre and lighter rifles shined.

And of course the fact that statistically it seems normal engagement ranges are 1-200m or so suggests the 7.62 was too much, and the fact that many Brits in the Falklands picked up Argentine FN FALs to get their full auto capable sears suggests full auto fire was considered useful... especially when you get down to bayonette range... which they did on several occasions.


I liked the EM-2. Although quite long for a bullpup (that's because it has a 24.5 inch barrel) it is very slim and solid-feeling - machined metal and wood!

They would have probably made a carbine version too. Wonder if they would have made a LSW version? Has anyone ever mentioned a LSW of the Em-2?

[GazB]

The first service weapon which can be identified as conforming to the specification of an assault rifle dates back to the First World War; the Russian Federov Avtomat of 1916.

Someone in the west finally noticed.
So often it is mentioned as a failed attempt at an assault rifle. That the 6.5mm Arisaka round was only by luck to be comparable in performance with modern assault rifle cartridges.
The key here is word Avtomat. Most believe or assume it is the Soviet/Russian word for automatic. It is not. It is the name of the rifle Federov made in 1916. Just like there is a vaccuum cleaner called a hoover and because it was one of the first, if not the first, then the name became synonymous with the thing. "I am doing the Hoovering" is accepted to be the same as "I am doing the vacuuming".

For the Soviets/Russians the Avtomat was the first assault rifle (in their opinions). All Soviet and Russian assault rifles have an A in their name... ie AK-47, AN-94, AS, etc.

Interesting that some claim because it doesn't have a custom designed intermediate cartridge it is not an Assault Rifle. The 6.5mm Arisaka fires a 120 grain bullet and from the Federovs short barrel its muzzle velocity is about 666m/s. That makes it slightly less powerful than the 7.62 x 39mm which fires a 122-123 grain projectile at about 712-720m/s. Of course the 7.62 x 39mm wasn't designed for the AK either, the first rifle to use it was the SKS. The 5.56 was a hunting cartridge before it was issued to some American soldiers who were supposed to be guarding airfields for their new M16 light carbines that were seen as replacements for the M1 carbine. Then a few South Vietnamese troops asked to be issued with this new light handy weapon.

Sorry while I am on my soap box, I must say I was disgusted with the History channel who recently had a program that mentioned a little about the M16. They blamed the problems the M16 had early on on the soldiers in the field not cleaning the rifle. That really annoyed me. The program even admitted that one of the solutions to the problems with the M16 was for the Army to issue cleaning kits for the rifles... when the rifle was first issued it had been tested with a new clean burning powder and so it was decided that the rifles didn't need cleaning kits and so they weren't issued with any. The soldiers were told these new space age rifles didn't need cleaning. The problems occured when suddenly everyone wanted this new light rifle after they saw how effective those little bullets were and so demand for ammo increased faster than production could be increased of the new powder... so they switched to the normal powder used in other rounds of the day. The result was a higher rate of fire (that meant parts broke more quickly and the effective life of the weapon was reduced) and also after firing there was a residue that had to be cleaned out before it hardened like a carbon based cement. The result was jamming weapons and broken weapons that wouldn't fire. Cleaning might have stopped the jamming, but the broken parts were something else. None of which was the fault of the grunt in the field. (Note some soldiers scrounged cleaning kits anyway and still had problems with broken parts.)

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

IMO, the M16 isn't a grunt's weapon. In a DM's hands it's an great weapon, but it's not really a great grunt weapon.

[SoCalEMT]

Couple of questions for anybody in the know...
Did the Soviets have a weapon selected to use Federov's intermediate rounds? Were there self-loading designs around pre-dating the AVS-36?

Fascinating read Mr. Williams. Thank you.

SoCalEMT

[GazB]

Did the Soviets have a weapon selected to use Federov's intermediate rounds?

?

The Federov Avtomat used 6.5mm Arisaka rounds. The 6.5mm Arisaka round is the standard rifle round used in Japan during that period.

Federov produced a wide range of different weapons based on the Avtomat including a light machinegun with water cooled barrel.

The problem was that the round was good for the job, but there was no way the Russian Army and then the Soviet Army was going to adopt a Japanese rifle round as their standard small arms calibre... it would cost too much.

The guns didn't scale up well to the Russian 7.62 x 54mm round which is a lot more powerful.

The AVS-36 and Tokarev rifles of the pre WWII show the heavy recoil and problems caused by using a powerful round in an automatic rifle.

[Tony Williams]

To clarify; the sudden expansion of armies in the first couple of years of WW1 caused a shortage of rifles until production could catch up. Japan wasn't involved in the ground war, so was able to supply lots of 6.5mm Arisaka rifles. Both the UK and Russia took large numbers of them (over 100,000 for the UK). The UK used them only for training, and passed them on to the Russians when supplies of Lee Enfields improved. The UK had also been making the 6.5mm ammo (which the Russians weren't) and sent millions of rounds to meet Russian orders. So the 6.5mm was an easily available cartridge in Russia in WW1. However, they decided after the war to concentrate future developments on the 7.62x54R.

The Federov stayed useful enough to be retained in service until around 1940, though.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Tony Williams]

More than that, I doubt that they would be looking at 6.5mm rounds now.
True - there would be no need.

The 7x43 was actually a good long-range cartridge, because its bullet was relatively heavy. The muzzle velocity of even the initial lower-velocity version was the same as the .303's, and it out-penetrated the prototype 7.62mm NATO round at 1,000 yards, while remaining effective to 2,000.


They would have probably made a carbine version too. Wonder if they would have made a LSW version? Has anyone ever mentioned a LSW of the Em-2?

Not that I'm aware of (although they could easily have made one if required). The idea was to simplify the weapon system: the EM-2 to replace the Lee Enfield and the Sten; the TADEN (a belt-fed Bren) to replace the Bren and the Vickers. It was a well-thought-out concept. Pity :cantbeli:

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[SoCalEMT]

My bad, I realize that the Federov Avtomat used the Japanese .25 round, although I didn't know that there were a profusion of models based upon his original design. I was under the (mistaken?) impression that the Soviets had come up with a new, proprietary 6-7mm rounds, as I wouldn't have expected them to officially adopt the Arisaka's round. I was more interested finding out more details on the shape Soviet small arms research in the interwar period was taking. Were there known examples of self-loading designs out there, bridging the gap between the Avtomat, and the subsequent semi-auto designs of the late 30's and war years?

Thanks,
SoCalEMT

[D.E. Watters]

They would have probably made a carbine version too. Wonder if they would have made a LSW version? Has anyone ever mentioned a LSW of the Em-2?

Yes to both. In "EM-2 Concept & Design," Dugelby noted the existence of "short barrel" and "heavy barrel" variants. These were sent to Malaya for trials.

FWIW: A while back I even found a reference in another report to:

"The Performance of Small Arms Weapons, Including the .280
(7 mm) Rifle, Used in the Machine Carbine Role in Malaya, "
Operational Research Unit Far East, Report No. 1/53, Mar
1953.

Reportedly, the National Archives (US) has a copy of this report.

[GazB]

Not that I'm aware of (although they could easily have made one if required). The idea was to simplify the weapon system: the EM-2 to replace the Lee Enfield and the Sten; the TADEN (a belt-fed Bren) to replace the Bren and the Vickers. It was a well-thought-out concept. Pity

Just looking at it now it seems so obvious... they could have asked for two calibres... a MG and sniper calibre and an assault rifle/carbine calibre. The US could continue on with the 7.62 x 51 for their rifles and MGs and those that wanted, including many gun makers in the US that probably also could see the sense in the idea, could make their rifles and machineguns, but also have "carbines" in the new calibre too.

I mean the Japanese, The Brits, the west Germans, the French, and the US (and anyone else I might have missed like the swiss etc) were giving up their standard rifle cartridge to simplify logisitics. WWII was fought with all those calibres so reducing to just three different rounds on the battlefield doesn't sound that bad. (ie 7.62 x 51mm for MG and sniper rifle and for those armies that wanted full power long range rifles they could have automatic rifles in this calibre too, the 7x43 for light "carbines" and assault rifles or any number of types, and of course the 9 x 19mm pistol round for all the SMGs and pistols.

If you think about it the US continuing to use the 45 calibre pistol round till they adopted the Barretta pistol in 9mm can be seen as an example of what I am suggesting.



I was under the (mistaken?) impression that the Soviets had come up with a new, proprietary 6-7mm rounds, as I wouldn't have expected them to officially adopt the Arisaka's round.

The fact that they didn't want to adopt a foreign round is part of what killed the Avtomat. Only about 5,000 were actually made. I have seen glimpses of one being fired in footage described as being from WWII. The guy holding the weapon looks asiatic but wearing WWII soviet uniform.


Were there known examples of self-loading designs out there, bridging the gap between the Avtomat, and the subsequent semi-auto designs of the late 30's and war years?

I constantly find references to machineguns and rifles etc whose name I am not familiar with being listed as weapons used in tanks and aircraft... names I have never heard of, machineguns that are not the few well known in the west. One name I remember is Fiodotov or something, as an MG from a 1920s-30s light tank. Never heard anything about it.

[Royal]

Fighting in the desert or flat open grassland of the Falklands

You've clearly never been to the Falklands - they're neither flat, nor grassland.

[REMOV]

Yes to both. In "EM-2 Concept & Design," Dugelby noted the existence of "short barrel" and "heavy barrel" variants. These were sent to Malaya for trials.http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3640/em219ob0.th.jpg (http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3640/em219ob0.jpg)
EM2 "Short Barrel"

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9373/em201qv2.th.jpg (http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9373/em201qv2.jpg)
EM2 Assault rifle
Reportedly, the National Archives (US) has a copy of this report.It will be interesting. BTW - AFAIR in the FN FAL book from Collector's Grade is a report from EM2 testing against other rifles M1, T44 and T48.

[D.E. Watters]

It will be interesting. BTW - AFAIR in the FN FAL book from Collector's Grade is a report from EM2 testing against other rifles M1, T44 and T48.

Yes, some of those reports are available for order through DTIC and NTIS. These links will take you to the DTIC citations. A couple can even be downloaded for free.

A Comparison Test of United Kingdom and United States Lightweight Rifles (http://stinet.dtic.mil/stinet/jsp/docread.jsp?K2DocKey=http%3A%2F%2Fstinet.dtic.mil%2Fstinet%2FXSLTServlet%3Fad%3DAD0896858%40trOther-search&Format=1F&Custom=&querytext=comparison+test&AD=AD0896858&TI=A+Comparison+Test+of+United+Kingdom+and+United+States+Lightweight+Rifles&RD=May+05%2C+1950&DC=%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+01+-+APPROVED+FOR+PUBLIC+RELEASE+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+23+-+AVAILABILITY%3A+DOCUMENT+PARTIALLY+ILLEGIBLE&XPC=&PAG=269+Pages%28s%29&MC=&PE=) (Downloadable .pdf)

A Comparison Test of United Kingdom and United States Ammunition for Lightweight Weapons. Volume I (http://stinet.dtic.mil/stinet/jsp/docread.jsp?K2DocKey=http%3A%2F%2Fstinet.dtic.mil%2Fstinet%2FXSLTServlet%3Fad%3DAD0896859%40tr0-search&Format=1F&Custom=&querytext=comparison+test&AD=AD0896859&TI=A+Comparison+Test+of+United+Kingdom+and+United+States+Ammunition+for+Lightweight+Weapons.+Volume+I.&RD=June+05%2C+1950&DC=%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+01+-+APPROVED+FOR+PUBLIC+RELEASE+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+23+-+AVAILABILITY%3A+DOCUMENT+PARTIALLY+ILLEGIBLE&XPC=&PAG=210+Pages%28s%29&MC=&PE=)

A Comparison Test of United Kingdom and United States Ammunition for Lightweight Weapons. Volume 2 (http://stinet.dtic.mil/stinet/jsp/docread.jsp?K2DocKey=http%3A%2F%2Fstinet.dtic.mil%2Fstinet%2FXSLTServlet%3Fad%3DAD0896860%40tr0-search&Format=1F&Custom=&querytext=comparison+test&AD=AD0896860&TI=A+Comparison+Test+of+United+Kingdom+and+United+States+Ammunition+for+Lightweight+Weapons.+Volume+2.+Appendices+P-W&RD=June+05%2C+1950&DC=%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+01+-+APPROVED+FOR+PUBLIC+RELEASE+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+23+-+AVAILABILITY%3A+DOCUMENT+PARTIALLY+ILLEGIBLE&XPC=&PAG=243+Pages%28s%29&MC=&PE=) (Downloadable .pdf)

ROUND-ROBIN COMPARISON TEST ON LIGHT RIFLE CARTRIDGES (http://stinet.dtic.mil/stinet/jsp/docread.jsp?K2DocKey=http%3A%2F%2Fstinet.dtic.mil%2Fstinet%2FXSLTServlet%3Fad%3DAD0492046%40tr0-search&Format=1F&Custom=&querytext=comparison+test&AD=AD0492046&TI=ROUND-ROBIN+COMPARISON+TEST+ON+LIGHT+RIFLE+CARTRIDGES.&RD=February+13%2C+1950&DC=%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+01+-+APPROVED+FOR+PUBLIC+RELEASE&XPC=&PAG=7+Pages%28s%29&MC=&PE=) (I'm not absolutely certain that this one covers the .280 British, but given its date, it might.)

[REMOV]

A Comparison Test of United Kingdom and United States Lightweight Rifles (http://stinet.dtic.mil/stinet/jsp/docread.jsp?K2DocKey=http%3A%2F%2Fstinet.dtic.mil%2Fstinet%2FXSLTServlet%3Fad%3DAD0896858%40trOther-search&Format=1F&Custom=&querytext=comparison+test&AD=AD0896858&TI=A+Comparison+Test+of+United+Kingdom+and+United+States+Lightweight+Rifles&RD=May+05%2C+1950&DC=%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+01+-+APPROVED+FOR+PUBLIC+RELEASE+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+%26nbsp%3B+23+-+AVAILABILITY%3A+DOCUMENT+PARTIALLY+ILLEGIBLE&XPC=&PAG=269+Pages%28s%29&MC=&PE=) (Downloadable .pdf)This is the same test quoted in FN FAL book.

[BugHunt]

Nice article Tony good read....

[GazB]

You've clearly never been to the Falklands - they're neither flat, nor grassland.

My mistake.

However my point is that where there are not a huge number of trees or scrub for cover, whether it is flat or not, ie even in the mountains of Afghanistan the Soviets found that having a soldier with an automatic rifle in 7.62 x 54mm calibre was useful. In fact often they would increase the allocation of those sorts of weapons per unit, so where a unit might normally have one SVD, a unit on the top of a barren rock surrounded by barren empty land might have 4 SVD equipped soliders. They also added weapons like recoilless rifles like the SPG-9, and the ZU-23 twin 23mm cannon in a towed mount for perimeter defence. Both the latter weapons were very effective at greater than small arms range, were available from old stocks and cheaper to use than other weapons in that effective range band, like ATGMs.

[REMOV]

However my point is that where there are not a huge number of trees or scrub for cover, whether it is flat or not, ie even in the mountains of Afghanistan the Soviets found that having a soldier with an automatic rifle in 7.62 x 54mm calibre was useful.The same tactical circumstances have forced the special forces and regular army to going back to the batte rifles (i.e. automatic rifles fed by rifle ammunition) and designated marksman rifles (usually upgraded old battle rifles like M14, but also a new one like the SR-25/Mk 11 Mod 0/M110 SASS series). Nothing happens by the accident, and now it is interesting situation - new models of battle rifles suddenly appears - after a twenty or thirty years of the assault rifle domination. For instance German H&K HK417, US/Belgium Mk 17 Mod 0 (FN SCAR-H), Swiss SIG SAPR etc.

[GazB]

Rather surprisingly, the Russians followed suit and adopted a new 5.45x39 7N6 cartridge for their next-generation rifle, the AK74. This is no more powerful than the 5.56 NATO although it does have an exceptionally good aerodynamic form achieved partly by a hollow bullet tip which sometimes bends on impact and thereby encourage tumbling in the target's body. Despite this feature, it is understood that in some quarters the older M1943 round is still preferred.

Should also point out your mistake here Tony... as far as I know there is not external deformation of the tip of an AK-74 round with human flesh. It might crush on impact with a hard target but the tumbling effect is created by the hollow tip moving the centre of gravity of the projectile to the rear. On impact a small amount of lead moves forward into the cavity... though mass moving forward inside the projectile should actually improve stability because it does not move uniformly it destabilises the bullet further so that the bullet tends to tumble on impact rather than after 10cm or so of penetration of flesh like other pointed bullet shapes.
This tumbling will occur at any impact speed so unlike the fragmentation effect of the 5.56 which relies of barrel length and target distance for lethality the 5.45mm is just as lethal at 600m as it is from 60m (assuming you hit a target at 600m and 60m that is).

The main reasons I have seen given for preference of the 7.62 x 39mm seem to revolve around the fact that the heavier slower bullet is less easily deflected by things like twigs and branches etc. ie the 7.62 x 39mm is more likely to hit the target after penetrating cover etc, even if it is less lethal. The easiest solution to lack of lethality of a bullet is simply to inflict multiple hits.

[Tony Williams]

Should also point out your mistake here Tony... as far as I know there is not external deformation of the tip of an AK-74 round with human flesh. It might crush on impact with a hard target but the tumbling effect is created by the hollow tip moving the centre of gravity of the projectile to the rear. On impact a small amount of lead moves forward into the cavity... though mass moving forward inside the projectile should actually improve stability because it does not move uniformly it destabilises the bullet further so that the bullet tends to tumble on impact rather than after 10cm or so of penetration of flesh like other pointed bullet shapes.
This tumbling will occur at any impact speed so unlike the fragmentation effect of the 5.56 which relies of barrel length and target distance for lethality the 5.45mm is just as lethal at 600m as it is from 60m (assuming you hit a target at 600m and 60m that is).

The main reasons I have seen given for preference of the 7.62 x 39mm seem to revolve around the fact that the heavier slower bullet is less easily deflected by things like twigs and branches etc. ie the 7.62 x 39mm is more likely to hit the target after penetrating cover etc, even if it is less lethal. The easiest solution to lack of lethality of a bullet is simply to inflict multiple hits.

Thanks for that, you are quite right - I actually learned that the legendary tip-bending didn't normally happen some time ago, but didn't re-read this bit when revising it :cantbeli:

[GazB]

Actually wanted to revive the thread too... :)

...you have an excellent website there... thanks.

BTW you mentioned in the article about the new round the Russians were working on in the 90s... from memory it was at first a 6 x 53mm round later reduced in length to 6 x 49mm. It had a 120-130 grain bullet travelling at something like 1,200mps or something.

Do you know anything else about it? For example I know its purpose was to replace the assault rifle and MG/Sniper rifle round with one round... the panacea of range and low impulse for close range firepower.

Was cost the only reason it was cancelled?

Did they actually get a low impulse with long range accuracy and power?

I mean with the hollowtip design of the 5.45 maintaining lethality at any velocity I am guessing range was achieved by high muzzle velocity and flat trajectory, but that would introduce problems like excessive barrel wear and muzzle blast/flash.

I also notice you missed a round... the Russian 9mm Grom. The only time I have seen it mentioned was in regard to the Gepard SMG. (it is based on the AKS-74U but with the pistol grip moved to where the magazine is fitted on the AK. A magazine is inserted into the pistol grip like on the Uzi SMG. The Gepard is unusual in that it comes with several recoil springs and screw in chambers and can use 9x17 short, 9x18 makarov, 9x19 parabellum, 9x21mm Russian, and 9x30mm grom rounds. There are about three different chamber screws, different recoil springs and bolt groups and pieces for the conversion... but the main feature is that it can fire 9x19mm and 9x18mm with the same recoil setup.

The 9x21mm Russian has a 103 grain projectile and a muzzle velocity of 430mps, while the 9 x 30mm fires a 115 grain bullet at 600mps.

[Tony Williams]

BTW you mentioned in the article about the new round the Russians were working on in the 90s... from memory it was at first a 6 x 53mm round later reduced in length to 6 x 49mm. It had a 120-130 grain bullet travelling at something like 1,200mps or something.

Do you know anything else about it? For example I know its purpose was to replace the assault rifle and MG/Sniper rifle round with one round... the panacea of range and low impulse for close range firepower.
Most of what I know about them is included in the book Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault%20Rifle.htm) by Max Popenker and myself:


"Some confusion was caused in the 1980s and 1990s by the announcement of new Russian cartridges in 6 mm calibre. These commenced with the 6 x 53 (or 6 x 54), with other experimentals in 6 x 57 and 6 x 58, but most interest appeared to have focused on a 6 x 49 which emerged in around 1990. However, none of these was intended for assault rifles; they were high-power cartridges – achieving as much as 1,150 m/s (3,770 fps) with bullets of around 5 g (77 grains) – meant to replace the venerable 7.62 x 54R in MGs and sniper rifles. It appears that work on these lapsed in the mid-1990s."
Rim diameter of the 6x49 was 11.3mm (the same as the 7.62x39) and overall cartridge length 69.5mm.

I also notice you missed a round... the Russian 9mm Grom.
I've asked Max to comment...

Edit to add: Max says that both the Gepard project and the 9x30 ammo disappeared in the late 1990s.

In any case, this was really a super-SMG round rather than an assault rifle number.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)

[GazB]

Edit to add: Max says that both the Gepard project and the 9x30 ammo disappeared in the late 1990s.

In any case, this was really a super-SMG round rather than an assault rifle number.

I remember reading about it in SOF in the mid 90s and it said it has the ability to penetrate flak vests out to 400m. Sounded to me to be an ideal PDW concept.

It is mentioned in a few books, though most are quite negative suggesting the various combinations of bolts and recoil springs and chamber screws for the different calibres would make it too complex. Of course that ignores the fact that that the operator will likely only bother with two calibres on any given mission. The 9 x 30mm for use against hard targets and then later in the mission you swap the bolt and recoil spring and chamber for the 9 x 19mm round for use with captured ammo. You just keep using the same mags...

77 grain sounds a little light... I would expect it would need to be of the same design as the AK-74 bullet to achieve sufficient lethality on target.
Am surprised such a light bullet would maintain accuracy to rifle and MG range.

[Tony Williams]

77 grain sounds a little light... I would expect it would need to be of the same design as the AK-74 bullet to achieve sufficient lethality on target.
Am surprised such a light bullet would maintain accuracy to rifle and MG range.

I agree. With a cartridge case of that size, not only a heavier bullet but a larger calibre would be optimal for long-range shooting, I think.

[GazB]

I remember reading somewhere that due to sectional density the optimum bullet weight for a 6.5mm bullet was about 120 grain. With it being 6mm I would expect an optimal weight to be 100 grain or so, but at such high velocity I expect they went for the lighter bullet to reduce the recoil impulse perhaps.

[Tony Williams]

I've just updated the article with some more info about LSAT gathered at Eurosatory: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

The pic below shows a belt of the plastic-cased ammo with a sectioned dummy caseless round on top:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/AAI%20LSAT%20ammo.jpg

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)

[REMOV]

The problem is Tony, that the dummy ammunition belt was put the wrong way. And the mock up LSAT/LMGA is the same that was shown at the Eurosatory 2006 but repainted p-)

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4403/lmga01up8.jpg

[Tony Williams]

ROFL!

It's surprising how often the companies get things wrong. ATK had a nice video on the LW25 Chain Gun running continuously on their stand: it included several shots of the ammo. Unfortunately, it was clearly the 25x39B XM25 ammo rather than the correct 25x59B.

[Para]

The EM2 was designed to replace the old .303 this was stopped due to pressure from the Americans who wanted a standard .300 round for NATO. Mind you the Americans had millions rounds of them left over from WW2. So Britain then bought the FN rifle although very good it was rather long and cumbersome. Well they dug out the EM2 and basically red signed it into what it has become. Mind you when it was first produced some of the components could have been built with better materials, and these in turn gave a number of problems which have now been corrected and it is now a great little weapon.

[Adam Wilhelm]

Not related to the topic.

Great to see you again Para. Long time no see.

[big_les]

..they dug out the EM2 and basically red signed it into what it has become. Mind you when it was first produced some of the components could have been built with better materials, and these in turn gave a number of problems which have now been corrected and it is now a great little weapon.

I don't think you can say there's much of a direct lineage between EM-2 and L85 - they share the same basic concept but are totally different weapons. It's rather like the Stg44/AK-47 debate.

If anything, the L85 is a redesigned AR-18.

[Para]

Big Les just how do you turn a SA80 or EM2 into a AR18

[Hydro]

The SA80 is basically an AR-18's guts stuck into a bullpup layout - the working parts are very similar in appearance and operation. The EM-2 has a different operating principle however, with (I believe) flap locking as opposed the rotary bolt in the SA80. However, that said, it's believed the EM-2 definitely gave the MoD a taste for bullpup designs with integrated optics. As a brief aside, the L1A1 was initially due to be issued with the EM-2's optics, called the UNIT sight. A Pathe newsreel on the Internet actually shows the early FN .30 (as twas then known) being fired with the UNIT installed.

[D.E. Watters]

In "Modern Military Bullpup Rifles" and "The Last Enfield," there are photos of early '70s RSAF-Enfield conversions of an AR-18 and a Stoner 63 to bullpup configuration. While the L85 is not a straight conversion, it is pretty clear that the folks at Enfield were cribbing notes from the AR-18's internal design all throughout its prolonged development.

[big_les]

The SA80 is basically an AR-18's guts stuck into a bullpup layout - the working parts are very similar in appearance and operation. The EM-2 has a different operating principle however, with (I believe) flap locking as opposed the rotary bolt in the SA80. However, that said, it's believed the EM-2 definitely gave the MoD a taste for bullpup designs with integrated optics. As a brief aside, the L1A1 was initially due to be issued with the EM-2's optics, called the UNIT sight. A Pathe newsreel on the Internet actually shows the early FN .30 (as twas then known) being fired with the UNIT installed.

^What he said, Para. If you handle both weapons you can see that there's even a slight external resemblance around the area of the action. The visible working parts are identical - because the working parts are basically the same. Bullpupping a workable design is simpler and quicker than designing something from scratch, or even picking up the defunct EM2 (which is arguably what they should have done). As you know, this proved not to be the case.

The EM1 and 2 were the certainly the impetus for a British-built, small-calibre, bullpup-layout rifle, and as such paved the way for the L85. But the actual final rifle owes more mechanically to the AR-18, which was being licence built by Enfield at the time. Had they gone with a true lineal development of the EM-2, the British Army might not have had to put up with the flawed L85-A1.

Basically the L85 shares little more with the EM2 than the M-16 does with its own predecessor. I'd be interested to know though, to what extent Enfield did revisit the EM2 project to inform their new rifle.

[REMOV]

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1368/ar18tn3.th.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1368/ar18tn3.jpg)

p-)

[D.E. Watters]

But the actual final rifle owes more mechanically to the AR-18, which was being licence built by Enfield at the time.

FWIW: AR-18 was license produced by Sterling, not Enfield. Former Sterling staffers have insisted that if they had been consulted on the project during its development, the L85A1 wouldn't have turned out as bad as it did.

[D.E. Watters]

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1368/ar18tn3.th.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1368/ar18tn3.jpg)

p-)

Actually, that's the version Sterling mocked up once they found out what RSAF-Enfield was doing with the AR-18.

[Little J]

Tony, saw this on defense review and thought you might be interested...
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1143

Its about using the 6.8 spc round in a 556 case, which is strangely similar to an idea I had a few years ago - except I would have used the 6.25 that was tested in the last 60's early 70's...

[Tony Williams]

Yes, I've seen that one, thanks. I am sceptical of the claim that it can match 6.8 Rem performance at similar pressures with a smaller case. TANSTAAFL!

[Molli]

One musn't forget both the XL65 and XL70 when discussing (the creation of) the SA80 family!

Would you all like me to scan and post some infomation on the above?

[domokun]

Thanks Mr. Williams, good article and nice web page full of interesting articles.

[Billy No Mates]

Former Sterling staffers have insisted that if they had been consulted on the project during its development, the L85A1 wouldn't have turned out as bad as it did.

I can remember the same thing in an article that appeared in the Guardian when the performance of the L85 became a matter of public debate(scandal) here that they would of been happy to help them out,i guess it was to much bother for them to travel across London from genteel Enfield to scummy Dagenham to compare notes .

[big_les]

FWIW: AR-18 was license produced by Sterling, not Enfield. Former Sterling staffers have insisted that if they had been consulted on the project during its development, the L85A1 wouldn't have turned out as bad as it did.

Balls! I knew I'd get something wrong, thanks for the correction. But you knew what I was driving at.

MolliG - go for it, I'm always interested in "dox".

[oldsoak]

IIRC - the Armalite bolt ran on rails welded to the side of the reciever with two return springs running on rods and not the three rod system we have in SA80's with a single return spring. The Armalite system was more robust and less ****e to not chambering the round properly ( anyone remember the forward assist in TOETs ? ) :-) which was one of the areas the SA80 failed in - hence the new, stronger spring in the A2's.
The EM2 had a lower cyclic rate than the SA80 , and sounded not unlike an AK if my memory serves me well - and its rubbish at times. Any comments folks ?

[Molli]

XL65

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/8126/88783936zc7.png

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1055/69327417dr2.png

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/953/99172988av5.png

[Molli]

XL70 and XL73

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/2604/96586029gp1.png

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4011/14071580go9.png

[big_les]

Ah, I'd seen the XL65 in an old Ian Hogg book (lacking the designation). Thanks for those.

I suppose at least visually there's something of a modernised EM rifle in that prototype, before it bloated out to IW size and weight!

[oldsoak]

How did they ever think that a mag fed LSW would replace a belt fed gpmg ?
They must have been on drugs.

bring back the .280 British !
...and the TADEN while we're at it....

[Tony Williams]

How did they ever think that a mag fed LSW would replace a belt fed gpmg ?


I don't think they did - the LSW replaced the L4 Bren.

[oldsoak]

The infantry section didnt have the Bren though, certainly not in 89 . We had the Bren in a Signals, and its use was AA ( dont laugh ). The rest of us had Sterling SMG's and SLR's. The co-located infantry unit had the bipod mounted GPMG at section level with the SLR -two per section of eight. I thought the idea was to replace ( at section level ) the SLR with SA80, the GPMG with LSW and move the GPMG into SF role. The arguement was that the weight of fire was now greater as everyone now had an automatic weapon, and therefore the GPMG was redundant at section level.

[Molli]

There is even a current of opinion that proposes that production never should begin as it would be cheaper to purchase a foreign design 'off the shelf', but production plans are still under way at Enfield Lock.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4011/14071580go9.png
What do think would have been shortlisted if (a very small if) 'a foreign design "off the shelf"' had been chosen over the SA80 family?

The M16? (Already in use.) The FNC? (Relationship with FN.) The AR-18? (Known to industry.) The Sterling LAR? (British.)

[oldsoak]

M16 - in use by biggest NATO partner, no compatibility issues. Sterling SAR ? I thought it was the LAR - was made by Singapore IIRC.

[REMOV]

The Steyr AUG, also bullpup assault rifle ;)

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5555/ga3rb6.th.jpg (http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5555/ga3rb6.jpg)

[oldsoak]

- but non compatible magazine and not in use by any other NATO member. Still a good rifle though.

[REMOV]

- but non compatible magazine and not in use by any other NATO member.The last time I checked the NATO members the Luxembourg (joined in 1949) was still on list.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1410/steyraug01bc3.th.jpg (http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1410/steyraug01bc3.jpg)

You forgot Pola... Luxembourg! p-)

FYI - more assault rifles in the NATO have the non compatible magazines, than the compatible.

[Molli]

Sterling LAR

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2229/52988780oe3.png

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/4361/91148479zz6.png

[Molli]

AUG? That must be that new design out of Austria...

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5210/28184299zs1.png

'COPYRIGHT © DENIS ARCHER 1977'...

[oldsoak]

Sterling LAR

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2229/52988780oe3.png

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/4361/91148479zz6.png

:oops:

Its a lack of booze 'n gun oil...

[big_les]

OK, I'm confused - is the L85 a development of the AR18 or the LAR? Or bits of both?

[oldsoak]

The last time I checked the NATO members the Luxembourg (joined in 1949) was still on list.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1410/steyraug01bc3.th.jpg (http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1410/steyraug01bc3.jpg)

You forgot Pola... Luxembourg! p-)

FYI - more assault rifles in the NATO have the non compatible magazines, than the compatible.

- when did Luxembourg adopt the Steyr ? Wasnt it after the UK went for the SA80 ?
The use of the M16 mag was to simplify development and production from the UK perspective once we had adopted the ss109 round - plus it ensured some compatibility between US and UK small arms at squad level. We could use each others STANAG M16 mags and 5.56 ball and we used the same 7.62 round and NATO disintegrating link.

[oldsoak]

OK, I'm confused - is the L85 a development of the AR18 or the LAR? Or bits of both?

AIUI Story goes summat like this
UK decides it needs new system to replace SLR + LMG/GPMG
UK thinks bullpups a fine idea.
UK looks at AR18, especially working parts.
UK decides not to pay royalty to Sterling/Armalite by copying and making the working parts, but instead ,erm, develop its own which is similar but not the same - and c*cks it up.
New weapon is demonstrated to industry amid giggles from Sterling engineers.
.....fast forward a decade and a bit...
HK have to sort the mess out and give us what we should have had in the 80's

[REMOV]

- when did Luxembourg adopt the Steyr ? Wasnt it after the UK went for the SA80 ?In the 1995. In this year, the Italy was first NATO nation which purchased Steyr AUG assault rifle, later in the same year Luxembourg bought over 1000 Steyrs in different configurations.
The use of the M16 mag was to simplify development and production from the UK perspective once we had adopted the ss109 roundIt true, but in fact the NATO never adopted one type of magazine. Untill 1990 some countries uses battle rifles with four or five different magazines (metric FN FAL, imperial FN FAL, H&K G3, M14, Beretta BM59) and slowly introduced assault rifles fed from M16-magazine (like Colt M16A1/A2, FN FNC, CETME L/LC* or Enfield SA80) or HK33 magazine. It was the closest to ideal situation. Then, the Germans introduced the G36 and the whole standardization idea fell through. Then in 1999 the whole bunch of East European countries joined the NATO and everyone forgot about the M16 magazine standard (in the meantime the Germans started to erode the whole thing).

* - the Spain position in NATO is, well, complex ;)

[Little J]

Heres a little bed time story...

Back in the mid to late 60's 3 nations began to look at developing new "assault" rifles for their armed forces, about 10 years later Austria deployed the unique AUG and France the equally original FAMAS.

About 10 years after those two Britain fudged the SA80a1 onto its armed forces by ripping off the AR18 :oops:...

In the early 90's another nation wanted a new assault rifle, they to ripped off parts of the AR18 as well as a couple of others. A few years late Germany deployed the G36 and in their spare time fixed the embarrassment that was the SA80 :hug:...


Little bit of poetic license, but basically true to events.

Anyway, now that this thread has been thoroughly hijacked i'm off to bed !

[GazB]

How did they ever think that a mag fed LSW would replace a belt fed gpmg ?
They must have been on drugs.

The Soviets have an interesting history there too. They ended WWII with the RP-46, a belt fed or drum fed LMG with a removable barrel in 7.62 x 54mm that was not that popular. With the new Assault Rifle round in the 7.62 x 39mm they adopted the SKS as the battle rifle but almost immediately replaced it with the AK-47 assault rifle. They also introduced the RPD LMG with a fixed barrel and a 100 round drum mag with a belt feed. This was later replaced by the RPK also in 7.62 x 39mm with a 40 round curved box mag. When the AK-47 and AKM were replaced with the AK-74 they also replaced the RPK with the RPK-74 with a 45 round box mag, in the case of the RPK and RPK-74 drum mags of large capacity were available but don't seem to be too widely deployed.

Now they seem to be issuing the Pecheneg, which is a modified PKM with a fixed barrel and a few other changes and a fixed barrel for use in the light machine gun role.

At the same time I saw on Future Weapons a new US rifle that was supposed to replace the FN Minimi in urban combat.

[Aldo Penniconi]

That weapon is the Infantry Automatic Rifle(IAR) made by LWRC. It is a nice weapon but it is just an M16 derivative and just fires from a closed/open bolt depending on the fire mode(A la FG42) for barrel cooling to prevent "chamber cooking".