Taking Back The Infantry Half-km: Britain’s L129A1

[chieftain]

The Saga continues, even in the British military.

From Defense Industry Daily:

Taking Back The Infantry Half-km: Britain’s L129A1

08-Jun-2010 17:51 EDT

If fighting in Iraq was mostly about Close Quarters Battle, experience on the ground in Afghanistan is driving home the opposite imperative: marksmanship and lethality at range. US studies like the influential “Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer” are driving that point home, and the trend is leading to shifts like fielding more 7.62mm M240 machine guns in place of 5.56mm M249 Minimis, and doubling the number of 7.62mm M14 EBR rifles per infantry squad to 2.

The British are facing the exact same pressures. After a very poor start, their 5.56mm SA80/ L85 bullpup assault rifles have been improved by an H&K redesign. That may help with jamming and reliability, but it doesn’t change the 5.56mm round’s fundamental ballistic characteristics, like its notable drop-off in lethality beyond 300 meters.

The Competition, and the Winner

In December 2009, The UK Ministry of Defence issued an initial GBP 1.5 million urgent operational requirements contract that would offer its troops a semi-automatic 7.62mm rifle with excellent accuracy, whose rate of fire and robustness made them usable within infantry squads, not just by specialized sniper teams. It had to demonstrate lethality in the 500-800 meter range, which is not uncommon in Afghanistan.

UK ‘sharpshooter’ soldiers remain chosen men, who must complete a marksmanship course but are expected to conduct the full range of infantry tasks, and are considered a grade below sniper. Britain’s new L115A3 .338/ 8.59mm sniper rifles left a lot of spare bolt-action L96s for sharpshooters to use, but that isn’t a suitable choice in the kinds of firefights patrolling soldiers experience.

The winning “L129A1” is gas-operated semi-automatic weapon with a 20-round magazine. Its single-piece upper receiver has free-floating, quick-change barrels available in 305 mm, 406 mm and 508 mm. The standardizing “Picatinny Rails” on the top, bottom, and sides allow a wide variety of attachments, from sights to flashlights to grips, that can be replaced in the field with only basic tools. At 5 kg/ 11 pounds, it’s close to the loaded weight of an SA80A2.

Jane’s reports that 7.62mm competitors included H&K’s 417, the FN-SCAR 17 used by US Special Forces, and Law Enforcement International’s winning LM7 design. Jane’s added that Sabre Defense Industries had also entered the competition, but did not specify whether the product was a 7.62mm weapon. Sabre’s weapons, like its M5, publicly offer only 5.56mm, or 6.5mm Grendel options.

While intermediate calibers like 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8mm SPC offer far superior ballistics with the same magazines as 5.56mm weapons, the pressures of standardization have kept them out of the field. A MASS contract under Britain’s long-term ammunition supply agreement may tweak the 5.56mm round’s performance, but it doesn’t offer the step change required. The choice of heavier 7.62mm rifles and less ammunition carried, or 5.56mm rounds with less range and penetration but more rounds carried, remains.

Contracts & Key Events

June 4/10: The UK MoD announces delivery of L129A1 Sharpshooter rifles to Royal Marines’ 40 Commando unit in Afghanistan. UK MoD.

Jan 22/10: Trijicon agrees to remove tiny coded bible verse references from its optics, placed beside the “Made in USA” moniker. Defence Management reports that their ACOG sights have been ordered to equip the UK’s new L129A1s.

If only they’d stuck to AUS3:16 instead…

Dec 29/09: An initial GBP 1.5 million urgent operational order is placed for 440 L129A1 sharpshooter rifles, which will be based on LEI’s LM7 design.

LEI is nominally a UK firm, though its web site remains inactive, and some sleuthing is required to find the connection. The rifles will reportedly be manufactured by Lewis Machine & Tool Company in the United States, with deliveries expected to begin in early 2010. Jane’s | Defence Management | UK Daily Mail | Strategy

Same problems our boys are having. The 5.56 NATO lacks the ass to get the job done, where it needs to be done in A-stan. Nothing new here.

Glad to see a fine American company getting the business.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[foghornl]

The winning “L129A1” is gas-operated semi-automatic weapon with a 20-round magazine. Its single-piece upper receiver has free-floating, quick-change barrels available in 305 mm, 406 mm and 508 mm.

I wanna see the 20-round magazines for that rifle...somehow, I just don't believe they are using a 305MM rifle...a 12 INCH bore? sounds moe like big guns for a destroyer, cruiser, etc

 

[SaMx]

those are barrel lengths, not bore diameters
the L129A1 is an AR-10

 

[lawson4]

^^^^^
talking about length of barrel.

Rick

 

[alohachris]

Does LMT make that Rifle-in-question?

 

[Justin]

The 5.56 NATO lacks the ass to get the job done,

"Ass". Now, is that a technical term? If so, would you mind linking to a military document that defines it?

Thanks.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Don't they have a million L1A1's lying around somewhere?

 

[JBNAL]

LMT has an AD saying they are proving the new 7.62 to the British Army.

 

[chieftain]

"Ass". Now, is that a technical term? If so, would you mind linking to a military document that defines it?

Thanks.

If you don't know what it means, either in the military or not, no one alive today can tell you. Documented or not.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[kwelz]

M4 and 5.56 works just fine for our guys int he sandbox. But the media loves sensational stories.

 

[Cosmoline]

"Ass". Now, is that a technical term? If so, would you mind linking to a military document that defines it?

In this case, I believe he means the steep decline in performance for the 5.56/.223 beyond 300 meters. At extended ranges it hits on par with a handgun round, and has none of the infamous explosive effect. The math is the math is the math.

The real question is, are our soldiers engaging in enough firefights at 300+ meters to justify a switch? In Afghanistan, the answer seems to be yes. Not so much in Iraq, but that chapter is thankfully closing (I hope). Ideally, I would like to see the line troops given a CHOICE of what they want to use for missions. Let the decision be made by the units who will be doing the fighting. 5.56 or 7.62 or some combination of the two. Radical idea, I know. Very radical. But the total cost of offering such a choice would be a tiny tiny fraction of what it costs to research plumbing fixtures at the Pentagon.

 

[Kwanger]

alohachris: does LMT make that Rifle-in-question?

Yes they do....this is pretty old news, the story has been around since December:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/jdw/jdw091229_1_n.shtml

 

[chieftain]

The real question is, are our soldiers engaging in enough firefights at 300+ meters to justify a switch? In Afghanistan, the answer seems to be yes. Not so much in Iraq, but that chapter is thankfully closing (I hope). Ideally, I would like to see the line troops given a CHOICE of what they want to use for missions. Let the decision be made by the units who will be doing the fighting. 5.56 or 7.62 or some combination of the two. Radical idea, I know. Very radical. But the total cost of offering such a choice would be a tiny tiny fraction of what it costs to research plumbing fixtures at the Pentagon.

Cosmoline, thank you.

I basicly agree with you. Under 150 yards/meters the 5.56Nato is fine. I always preferred more, but the 5.56 NATO worked. It seems that from several sources, both American and now British, the infantry combat is over 300 yards/meter 50% of the time. If so, more caliber is needed.

I think we need two rifles, or varients for issue. SCAR is already available in either caliber in either MK 16 or MK 17.

A swapable top end would be nice but of course the 5.56 magazine well is the limiting factor in existing weapons. Maybe, possibly, the MK 17 which is chambered for the 7.62 NATO could possibly be blocked to create a reliable lower that would work with both calibers.

And of course the other course of action is the selection of a new cartridge. I suggest that if we do that, we get a new rifle too. Don't limit ourselves to that hole in the existing magwell.

The other thing is that sighting optics will have to go beyond X1 power reddots. The 4X ACOG's should shine and other such new and better stuff. for hitting reliably "out there". Or as some folks are doing both, off set either above, or at the one o'Clock postion off the rail with the reddot. Creative thinking with good R&D should get our boys what they need.

But there are many ways to go. I have the SCAR light (W/ACOG), and like it better than any of my other black rifles (not withstanding that my SCAR is the Khaki one, I live in a desert). I don't have the Heavy 7.62 NATO model. I will probably get one when they become comfortably available. I have my M1A/M14 for 7.62 business. Like I carried in Vietnam. Before they held a "GUN" to my head and made me turn it in, midway through my 2nd tour with the 3rd Marine Division.

Many ways to go. I would like to see the best weapon/caliber be the criteria, but it rarely is. I believe we need two caliber capability with modular changes capable to handle both with just a change of the top, or the barrel, bolt and maybe magazine or something of that ilk. Or just two different rifles with two different calibers, of similar design. The SCAR does that today.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[C-grunt]

I have two friends in Afghanistan right now. One is in a Stryker unit and the other is a SF guy. Both of these guys have stated that the 5.56 is working great there. The fact is that most of the guys will not be getting hits at 500 meters even with a bigger rifle. The Taliban are not just standing out in the open for us to pick them off.

Also these articles fail to mention that our squads already carry several long range weapons. My old unit had 10 man squads. 2 guys had SAWs, 1 had a M240B, 2 had M203s and during my last tour you had a DMR. So out of 10 guys that leaves only 4 Soldiers with "only" a M16 or M4.

We are not being "out ranged" by the Taliban. Sure if they attack us from 600 meters with a belt fed machine gun, the M16/M4 might not be effective return fire. But the SAWs and M240Bs can cover that range easy.


EDIT... Also, my Stryker unit friend stated that these 500 meters engagements are mostly just harrasing fire. He told me that they couldnt even hit his Stryker during one firefight they had at about 300-400 meters. But his platoon was somehow able to kill 10 of them that day with their "short range" weapons.

 

[Mk VII]

Don't they have a million L1A1's lying around somewhere?

No, they scrapped the war reserve to save the cost of storing it, and gave the rest away to Sierra Leone.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Seems to me that the big question is "Are we making hits at 300m and beyond in combat?"

Because if we're not, what we're missing with is irrelevant (though a bigger rifle with less ammo is probably not goong to help). If we are making hits at 300m and the round is not effective, that is another story - however it strikes me as being data that would be very difficult to gather reliably. How often are you going to be able to observe a definite, clean hit on a combatant at 300m+ and then also note the round was ineffective?

 

[Float Pilot]

There never will be a perfect rifle / carbine for all occasions and conditions. Maybe phazers one day...

It does not hurt to have two or three types of weapons in the system for different situations.

While more a pain for logistics, it does give a unit the ability to layer the response.

During WWII all the major participants had sub-guns, rifles and carbines of one type or another..

 

[KodiakBeer]

During WWII all the major participants had sub-guns, rifles and carbines of one type or another..

Eggzackly!

 

[Hatterasguy]

Ah its an AR10. I'm guessing they were hot to adopt it since they lack M14's.

I wonder if they are going to issue them a couple per squad like we do, or do what the Brit's love to do and hold them in their own squads to be parceled out.

 

[Limeyfellow]

KodiakBeer:
Don't they have a million L1A1's lying around somewhere?

There not that many left. A bunch were sold of for surplus when NATO got ordered by the US to change to 5.56 mm. Most the others that remained are so well used they are just plain worn out. Some are still used to fire ship lines for mooring boats and a few other activities but for the most part there very few battle ready SLRs remaining.

 

[JShirley]

It seems that from several sources, both American and now British, the infantry combat is over 300 yards/meter 50% of the time.

Rubbish. If you're fighting at that distance, you use a crew-served weapon.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Rubbish. If you're fighting at that distance, you use a crew-served weapon.

If you have one. My take is that most of these engagements are foot patrols taking shots from the heights around them. By the time air or anything heavier comes up, the shooters are gone.

 

[Hammerhead6814]

Someone suggests that the 5.56 isn't getting the job done, a military replaces it in a single way, and thousands of AR fans start crying and hugging their rifles. From the AR forums to THR, the denial is so great you could tell them it's cloudy outside and they'd scream "It's sunny! IT'S SUNNY I TELL YOU!".

The real problem with the AR-platform (M4 Carbine) is that the M4's in Afghanistan have 14.5 inch barrels. You really begin to castrate the 5.56x45 round when you do that. There simply isn't enough time for the powder to burn and give the projectile enough energy to travel at speeds necessary for it to be effective against a human target at 300+ meters.

Either switch back to the 20 inch barrels in Afghanistan, use a bullpup (barrel length 20 inches), or start sending every squad out with 2-3 designated marksmen with an AR-10 each.

How often are you going to be able to observe a definite, clean hit on a combatant at 300m+ and then also note the round was ineffective?

When the guy you were shooting at keeps shooting.

No, they scrapped the war reserve to save the cost of storing it, and gave the rest away to Sierra Leone.

When they could have sold them to us. Am I right?

 

[Float Pilot]

Either switch back to the 20 inch barrels in Afghanistan, use a bullpup (barrel length 20 inches)

,

Yeap,,, the 5.56mm was designed to fire a 55 grain, barely stabilized bullets at 3,100 fps from a light weight 20 inch rifle. Oh yeah,,, at 85 to 110 pound enemies in a short range environment.

The M-4 carbine barrel length, the over stabilized 1 in 7 twist and the 62 grain M-855 bullets all act to reduce the weapons lethality. Particularly when firing at much bigger people, (who think they are fighting for God) at much longer ranges.

If you are gonna stick with 5.56mm.... then issue...

1. M-4 being used in close range urban conditions should have a 1 in 9.5 twist to barely stabilize the M-855 ammo. That would make them much better fight stoppers.

2. An M16A2 type rifle with a 22 inch free floated barrel, a real scope and a target grade trigger should be issued to a few troops in every unit in the hills / mountains.
They should be issued 69 to 77 grain ammo and have a rifling twist which does not over stabilize the bullet.

 

[RP88]

Yeap,,, the 5.56mm was designed to fire a 55 grain, barely stabilized bullets at 3,100 fps from a light weight 20 inch rifle. Oh yeah,,, at 85 to 110 pound enemies in a short range environment.

The M-4 carbine barrel length, the over stabilized 1 in 7 twist and the 62 grain M-855 bullets all act to reduce the weapons lethality. Particularly when firing at much bigger people, (who think they are fighting for God) at much longer ranges.

If you are gonna stick with 5.56mm.... then issue...

1. M-4 being used in close range urban conditions should have a 1 in 9.5 twist to barely stabilize the M-855 ammo. That would make them much better fight stoppers.

2. An M16A2 type rifle with a 22 inch free floated barrel, a real scope and a target grade trigger should be issued to a few troops in every unit in the hills / mountains.
They should be issued 69 to 77 grain ammo and have a rifling twist which does not over stabilize the bullet.

it was made to fight our enemies. It was not made just to fight the NVA. If that was all it was made for we would have switched back to the M14 or made something else already.

The bullet is not overstabilized in 1:7 twist unless you use too light of a round. Then, the spin literally tears it apart. But for 55-~80 grains, 1:7 is ideal.

Your number-two choice is basically a DMR rifle that works better in a larger caliber to begin with. Your number-one choice is basically destroying what range the M4 has by now possibly understabilizing the bullet.