[Tony Williams]

A couple of articles for you guys to read. The first is in today's Janes Defence Weekly:
http://www.quarry.ni...o.uk/btbjdw.pdf

and here is the longer report of which the article is a summary:
http://www.quarry.ni...m.co.uk/btb.pdf

[shep854]

So the British Army has no L1A1s they can issue as a stop-gap, such as the US use of M14s?

[Wobbly Head]

shep854, on Tue 10 Nov 2009 1037, said:

So the British Army has no L1A1s they can issue as a stop-gap, such as the US use of M14s?

I think they sold them or gave them away. Even if they did have SLR's the last platoon to go through training with them was in April 1991 so even finding troops with experience with the weapon would be harder.

[aevans]

When did the term "intermediate" start describing something between 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm, rather than something between rifle power and pistol power?

[Special-K]

Wobbly Head, on Tue 10 Nov 2009 0849, said:

I think they sold them or gave them away. Even if they did have SLR's the last platoon to go through training with them was in April 1991 so even finding troops with experience with the weapon would be harder.

Yeah, but they're pretty simple rifles, right? The same could be said about US troops use of M-14's - we hadn't trained on them in decades (except for very limited use by SOCOM or the Navy).





-K

[Rod]

From the article: "Another problem is terminal effectiveness. Military ammunition cannot legally take advantage of expanding bullets used commercially for hunting, which can inflict devastating injuries. So military bullets, especially the small 5.56 mm, rely on a ‘yawing effect’ to maximise their effectiveness."

Why can't the military use expanding bullets? If it is against Geneva Conventions, then is shooting a RPG directly against an infantry soldier also prohibited?

[sandeherred]

Rod, on Tue 10 Nov 2009 2145, said:

Why can't the military use expanding bullets? If it is against Geneva Conventions, then is shooting a RPG directly against an infantry soldier also prohibited?

As we used to say, "No sir, I wasn't aiming at the soldier - I was aiming at his web belt".
Heavy weapons can only be used against eguipment (tanks, helos, etc, etc)

[R011]

Rod, on Tue 10 Nov 2009 2245, said:

Why can't the military use expanding bullets? If it is against Geneva Conventions, then is shooting a RPG directly against an infantry soldier also prohibited?

Exploding projectiles under 400 grams cause wounds that are not much less disabling than non-exploding bullets of similar size, but cause wounds that are harder to treat - or at least they did in 1868 when the St Petersburg Declaration prohibiting them was signed. An RPG round masses much more than 400 g so is quite legal, as are non-exploding, non-expanding .50 caliber rounds.

[bojan]

sandeherred, on Wed 11 Nov 2009 0643, said:

...Heavy weapons can only be used against eguipment (tanks, helos, etc, etc)

Which is a myth.

[Ivanhoe]

Special-K, on Tue 10 Nov 2009 1455, said:

Yeah, but they're pretty simple rifles, right? The same could be said about US troops use of M-14's - we hadn't trained on them in decades (except for very limited use by SOCOM or the Navy).

One advantage we have is that there are tens of thousands of M1A owners most of whom are active shooters, thus keeping the parts industry alive. We also have scads of retired servicemen who qualed on the M14 and used it in RVN, so there's that knowledge base available with a phone call; same can be said for nations which used the FAL in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a small FAL parts industry here in the States, I imagine worldwide it would be big enough to support a reissue of the FAL.

[sandeherred]

bojan, on Wed 11 Nov 2009 0414, said:

Which is a myth.

I just read the conventions and you are right. That's what we were told by those who probably should have known better.
In my defense I must say that some of the language is rather vague. Unnecessary suffering? WTF? Slap 'em down dead with an expanding bullet and there is no suffering.
The conventions only apply amongst signatories. I don't know who these nations are but I know family members who said they altered ammo. This would be in the pacific WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.
Probably not a racial issue here, just a need to "put 'em down".

[R011]

sandeherred, on Wed 11 Nov 2009 1124, said:

In my defense I must say that some of the language is rather vague. Unnecessary suffering? WTF? Slap 'em down dead with an expanding bullet and there is no suffering.

A .58 caliber minie ball could not contain enough 1868 technology explosive to create an immediately lethal wound nor would it disable an enemy for combat purposes any more than the regular soft lead ball. It would mean that a wounded man would die a bit more painfully. Do note if you can use it on him, he can use it on you.

[Panzermann]

Wobbly Head, on Tue 10 Nov 2009 1449, said:

I think they sold them or gave them away. Even if they did have SLR's the last platoon to go through training with them was in April 1991 so even finding troops with experience with the weapon would be harder.

L1s from British stocks can be bought in Germany in a "civilized" version. ;)


As idiotic as it is, that means that several parts need to be changed and exchanged so that no part of the original Triggergroup and some other parts may fit again so it does not become a "war weapon". What an idiocy in this case as the L1 is semi-auto only. :rolleyes:



BTT:
Tony, you could have mentioned the development in Russia, that they also have a new 6 mm round for all purposes. So others obviously think along the same lines. Though I doubt this cartridge ever gets fielded looking at the russian shortage of funds.

This post has been edited by Panzermann: 11 November 2009 - 1244 PM

[aevans]

sandeherred, on Wed 11 Nov 2009 1624, said:

Slap 'em down dead with an expanding bullet and there is no suffering.

You've obviously never seen anybody hit with an expanding projectile. Doing more immediate damage doesn't necessarily mean quicker death.

[Panzermann]

Yes, there is no magic bullet and will never be for insta-death™.

[sandeherred]

aevans, on Wed 11 Nov 2009 1203, said:

You've obviously never seen anybody hit with an expanding projectile. Doing more immediate damage doesn't necessarily mean quicker death.

No, I was alluding more to stopping power. It doesn't take an anatomy lesson to know even a small projectile will kill. A controlled expansion bullet is better than a regular mil ball at doing this, otherwise hunters would opt for the mil ammo.

BTW, in my neck of the woods any .30-06 is still commonly called a "jap-slapper".

[aevans]

sandeherred, on Wed 11 Nov 2009 2140, said:

No, I was alluding more to stopping power. It doesn't take an anatomy lesson to know even a small projectile will kill. A controlled expansion bullet is better than a regular mil ball at doing this, otherwise hunters would opt for the mil ammo.

But your argument wasn't about stopping power, theoretical or otherwise. It was:

"Slap 'em down dead with an expanding bullet and there is no suffering."

Quote

BTW, in my neck of the woods any .30-06 is still commonly called a "jap-slapper".

I take that to mean that you get your ideas about combat from the old fossils down at the VFW who were never actually in combat, just saw a lot of it on TV.

[Olof Larsson]

sandeherred, on Wed 11 Nov 2009 1724, said:

The conventions only apply amongst signatories. I don't know who these nations are but I know family members who said they altered ammo. This would be in the pacific WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

For the St Peterburg Convention it's:

- Austria-Hungary
- Belgium
- Denmark
- France
- Great Britain
- Germany - signed by Bavaria, the North German Confederation (i.e., Greater Prussia) and Württemberg separately
- Greece
- Italy
- Netherlands
- Portugal
- Russia
- Sweden and Norway
- Switzerland
- Ottoman Empire

[sandeherred]

aevans, on Wed 11 Nov 2009 1556, said:

But your argument wasn't about stopping power, theoretical or otherwise.
I take that to mean that you get your ideas about combat from the old fossils down at the VFW who were never actually in combat, just saw a lot of it on TV.

OK, OK - you slapped me down. Please forgive my hyperbole on suffering. My last words in my post were "...put 'em down." I was alluding to stopping power.

The "old fossils" you mock are all family combat vets: 12 yrs cumulative inf wwII, 2 yrs cumulative inf Korea, 6 yrs cumulative inf Vietnam.

[aevans]

sandeherred, on Wed 11 Nov 2009 2317, said:

The "old fossils" you mock are all family combat vets: 12 yrs cumulative inf wwII, 2 yrs cumulative inf Korea, 6 yrs cumulative inf Vietnam.

My sincerest apologies if you think I was mocking a nactual combat vet. But in my experience, WWII combat vets are hardly so cavalier in their talk.