Brit Army officially withdraws AW308s from service

[strife]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TDECK</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Australia went this route some time ago. </div></div>

Aussies have the AW 7.62 designated as SR98, The Blaser Tac2 in 338 and AW50

 

[sititunga]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: strife</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aussies have the AW 7.62 designated as SR98, The Blaser Tac2 in 338 and AW50 </div></div>

I've often wondered about the Blaser especially with its straight-pull bolt in 338.

 

[banshee sws]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

the AI system is the most used SWS in the world

hard to believe Britain would be one of the few countries to NOT use them

 

[praharin]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: banshee sws</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the AI system is the most used SWS in the world

hard to believe Britain would be one of the few countries to NOT use them </div></div>

I believe this post states several times over that they will still be using the AI AWSM in 338 Lapua magnum.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

Regarding going to the Grendel, do the Brits have any M4s or M16s that they could simply replace the uppers on?

If the LMT has a 16" barrel and the Grendel had the same length what would the comparative velocities be and would the Grendel have any advantage then?

I'm going to assume the Brits would have had their own "accurate" 7.62 M118LR equivalent, or is that what they use as well? Existing ammo currently available a factor?

When you convert the pound to dollar, it looks like they're paying almost 5300 American per unit.

 

[sititunga]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

I guess they probably do in limited numbers. But all they are looking to replace is a battery of about 1000 rifles I`m guessing to fulfill the role of the old AW308s and now LMT AR10 equivalents. The lowers aren`t the expensive part.

 

[Mac679]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

Here's a major disadvantage to those arguing for 6.5 Grendel. This is a weapon intended for combat, not a range. If you have a Soldier who's primary weapon shoots a different caliber from everyone else, what do you do when you're in a TIC bad enough that he runs out of ammo? At least with 7.62 you can go over to you friendly neighborhood 240B/MAG58 gunner and delink some ball ammo to stay in the fight.

Ref L96 vs AW. If I remember right the Swedes got ahold of the original L96s as they were interested in buying them for their military. They sent back a list of improvements that would need to be made before they bought them (ie the ice grooves on the bolt, etc.). All the changes were due to the Arctic environment found in Sweden. The changes were applied across the board and the Swedish rifle became the PSG90, the rest of the world learned it as the AW (Arctic Warfare) and the Brits adopted it as the L96A1. I could be wrong as it's what I remember being told a long time ago by a guy with a lot of time on the AW series.

 

[sititunga]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mac679</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a major disadvantage to those arguing for 6.5 Grendel. This is a weapon intended for combat, not a range. If you have a Soldier who's primary weapon shoots a different caliber from everyone else, what do you do when you're in a TIC bad enough that he runs out of ammo? At least with 7.62 you can go over to you friendly neighborhood 240B/MAG58 gunner and delink some ball ammo to stay in the fight. </div></div>

I see your point but what about the increasing use of the 338LM and 300WM. The 6.5 Grendel was designed as a combat round for the AR15, the parent case being the 7.62x39. It is designed to be as effective as the 308 (and some would argue past 500 to 600 yards that it's actually better), with the added advantage of allowing the user to carry more rounds into the field.

 

[praharin]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is designed to be as effective as the 308 (and some would argue past 500 to 600 yards that it's actually better)</div></div>

Could you please quantify "better"?

From my research, the 6.5 has a slightly lower velocity at 1000 yards when compared to 308. It is also pushing a lighter bullet.


http://www.hornady.com/store/308-Win-155-gr-Match/

http://www.hornady.com/store/6.5-Grendel-123-gr-A-MAX/

I get the 6.5 drops 52.5 inches at 500 yards with 856 ft-lbs and the 308 155 grain drops 44.9 with 1225 ft-lbs inches.


Again, I ask, how is the 6.5 better at 500 yards?

 

[sititunga]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

That's true but if you look at the 123 grain Lapua, which is the Grendel's bench mark bullet, and make the comparison the Grendel is flying faster at 1k. While the two run neck and neck in the velocity stakes the BC of the 6.5, especially the 123 Lapua, means the 6.5 beats the 308 155 in the wind everytime. I think the efficiency of this little round speaks for itself.

 

[popeye089]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's true but if you look at the 123 grain Lapua, which is the Grendel's bench mark bullet, and make the comparison the Grendel is flying faster at 1k. While the two run neck and neck in the velocity stakes the BC of the 6.5, especially the 123 Lapua, means the 6.5 beats the 308 155 in the wind everytime. I think the efficiency of this little round speaks for itself. </div></div>

First lets disect this thing piece by piece.....
The grendel is not a NATO round and isn't widely available at all times so from the get go because of availability the round is a dead issue.
second
Nobody uses the the 155gr the round used is the M118LR pushing a 175 grn Sierra BTHP Match King which after 200 yds beats your grendel link and since it is heavier and flying faster it's going to be able to buck the wid better.

http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=151

I know their are better rounds out there but you number guys know what....for the performance it offers, at the avaiablitity it offers world wide, at the cost it affords, with it's track record, and unlike the hot rounds that "are better" it's barrel life (10000+ rounds)the 308 is still king yeah i know 300 winmag this 338 Lapua that but when everything is said and done the 308 gets it done without punishing the shooter, the rifle's barrel, or the pocket book

 

[sititunga]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: popeye089</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's true but if you look at the 123 grain Lapua, which is the Grendel's bench mark bullet, and make the comparison the Grendel is flying faster at 1k. While the two run neck and neck in the velocity stakes the BC of the 6.5, especially the 123 Lapua, means the 6.5 beats the 308 155 in the wind everytime. I think the efficiency of this little round speaks for itself. </div></div>

First lets disect this thing piece by piece.....
The grendel is not a NATO round and isn't widely available at all times so from the get go because of availability the round is a dead issue.
second
Nobody uses the the 155gr the round used is the M118LR pushing a 175 grn Sierra BTHP Match King which after 200 yds beats your grendel link and since it is heavier and flying faster it's going to be able to buck the wid better.

http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=151

I know their are better rounds out there but you number guys know what....for the performance it offers, at the avaiablitity it offers world wide, at the cost it affords, with it's track record, and unlike the hot rounds that "are better" it's barrel life (10000+ rounds)the 308 is still king yeah i know 300 winmag this 338 Lapua that but when everything is said and done the 308 gets it done without punishing the shooter, the rifle's barrel, or the pocket book </div></div>

The Grendel still beats it on drop and wind. The barrel life on the Grendel is comparable also.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

In all the comparisons I've ever seen of Grendel vs. .308, the Grendel usually has a 24" barrel. That's why I specifically asked about equal barrel lengths and velocity. Then a comparison could be made to drift between the 2. I would think they'd be fairly similar in velocity with the .308 having more energy.

If the Grendel had to have a longer barrel to be competitive I'd think that would add difficulty for CQB. And what would the comparative weight of the rifles be?

You could carry more dissimilar ammo, but not have the ability (if the Brits use them) to delink MG ammo in the field. I'm just asking if the Brits could've gotten more bang for the buck going with the Grendel or not. Obviously they'd have to get the ammo into the system.

 

[sititunga]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fngmike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In all the comparisons I've ever seen of Grendel vs. .308, the Grendel usually has a 24" barrel. That's why I specifically asked about equal barrel lengths and velocity. Then a comparison could be made to drift between the 2. I would think they'd be fairly similar in velocity with the .308 having more energy.

If the Grendel had to have a longer barrel to be competitive I'd think that would add difficulty for CQB. And what would the comparative weight of the rifles be?

You could carry more dissimilar ammo, but not have the ability (if the Brits use them) to delink MG ammo in the field. I'm just asking if the Brits could've gotten more bang for the buck going with the Grendel or not. Obviously they'd have to get the ammo into the system. </div></div>

You're right the optimum barrel length for the Grendel is 24 inches but I think it's 26 for the 308. A Grendel with an 18 inch barrel shooting the 123 gr Lapua is the shortest I think you can go to achieve supersonic speed at 1k yds. The LMTs the Brits have bought have 16 inch barrels so they won't be getting the best velocities out of them either.

 

[Emouse]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Britain retired the 7.62mm AI sniper rifle for the .338 Lapua Magnum.

Economy-minded, they passed the 7.62s down to platoon-level marksmen. While a good weapon, a soldier who is not sniper-qualified may not get the most out of a bolt action rifle. Squads and platoons lost a 5.56mm rifle where the rubber-meets-the-road.

The British adopted the LMT (L129A1) 7.62mm self-loader to regain semi-auto fire support at the squad. The 6X ACOG, standardized for the MAG-58 machinegun, was already in stock and put on the L129A1s.

The 7.62mm sniper rifles, now homeless, either go into reserve storage or wherever British military guns (i.e., the FAL/SLR) go to die.</div></div>

This is ill informed. The AW remains, an issue item for precision interdiction to 1,000yds+ The AW .338 is the 1500yrd i.e long range rifle. Both are issued to qualified snipers.

The LMT is to bridge the gap between assualt rifle and sniper with a weapon for lesser decicated marksmen out to 800yds.

The AW has as yet has not been dumped or scrapped. It is still in daily use and yes,..racking up operational kills.

 

[Emouse]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: popeye089</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's true but if you look at the 123 grain Lapua, which is the Grendel's bench mark bullet, and make the comparison the Grendel is flying faster at 1k. While the two run neck and neck in the velocity stakes the BC of the 6.5, especially the 123 Lapua, means the 6.5 beats the 308 155 in the wind everytime. I think the efficiency of this little round speaks for itself. </div></div>

First lets disect this thing piece by piece.....
The grendel is not a NATO round and isn't widely available at all times so from the get go because of availability the round is a dead issue.
second
Nobody uses the the 155gr the round used is the M118LR pushing a 175 grn Sierra BTHP Match King which after 200 yds beats your grendel link and since it is heavier and flying faster it's going to be able to buck the wid better.

http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=151

I know their are better rounds out there but you number guys know what....for the performance it offers, at the avaiablitity it offers world wide, at the cost it affords, with it's track record, and unlike the hot rounds that "are better" it's barrel life (10000+ rounds)the 308 is still king yeah i know 300 winmag this 338 Lapua that but when everything is said and done the 308 gets it done without punishing the shooter, the rifle's barrel, or the pocket book </div></div>

The Grendel still beats it on drop and wind. The barrel life on the Grendel is comparable also. </div></div>

Grendal was a nice idea but given the .260 REM is all that and more, why go that route? Current service rifles will swop out to .260 with just a barrel swop giving instant 1600yrd capabillity. That said there is no interset anywhere in adopting another cartridge into the supply chain.

 

[Vin]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: popeye089</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's true but if you look at the 123 grain Lapua, which is the Grendel's bench mark bullet, and make the comparison the Grendel is flying faster at 1k. While the two run neck and neck in the velocity stakes the BC of the 6.5, especially the 123 Lapua, means the 6.5 beats the 308 155 in the wind everytime. I think the efficiency of this little round speaks for itself. </div></div>

First lets disect this thing piece by piece.....
The grendel is not a NATO round and isn't widely available at all times so from the get go because of availability the round is a dead issue.
second
Nobody uses the the 155gr the round used is the M118LR pushing a 175 grn Sierra BTHP Match King which after 200 yds beats your grendel link and since it is heavier and flying faster it's going to be able to buck the wid better.

http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=151

I know their are better rounds out there but you number guys know what....for the performance it offers, at the avaiablitity it offers world wide, at the cost it affords, with it's track record, and unlike the hot rounds that "are better" it's barrel life (10000+ rounds)the 308 is still king yeah i know 300 winmag this 338 Lapua that but when everything is said and done the 308 gets it done without punishing the shooter, the rifle's barrel, or the pocket book </div></div>

The Grendel still beats it on drop and wind. The barrel life on the Grendel is comparable also. </div></div>

Grendal was a nice idea but given the .260 REM is all that and more, why go that route? Current service rifles will swop out to .260 with just a barrel swop giving instant 1600yrd capabillity. That said there is no interset anywhere in adopting another cartridge into the supply chain. </div></div>

Why have a 338lm if a .260 gives you instant 1600 yd capability. .260 ...1600yd capability, sorry but I dont think so.

 

[Muskett]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

From my armchair: Afghanistan has its own particular rifle requirements and specifically the need for range as normal munitions, artillery, are restricted in use.

The 338lm is the new round on the block. The .50 cal didn't have the accuracy and 308 the range (logistically both forms of ammunition are available within any unit, though not of sniper quality; so bringing an all new round in is highly irregular but in my book great news). Very quickly the 338lm has become pretty standard for snipers and taken up by many countries including the Brits. This round has already achieved some incredible long range results. I actually think the sniper system has reached about as far out as it can practically go with a human behind the trigger (the next stage will be an operator of a firing machine using a digitalized enhanced view finder or something and fire something completely new).

Sharpshooters are not a new concept but not really considered since the 1st WW. They are not snipers (Company or Battalion or above asset) but a Pln level weapon system. Again its Afghanistan peculiarity that made the need.
Individual weapon systems using 5.56 are fine, with Minimi (5.56) or GPMG (7.62) for greater firepower to win the fire fight. But there was also the need for more precision than what they could deliver (minimize collateral damage). The reason for a precision 7.62, however the Pln could not afford to loose the firepower from having a bolt action over an auto in the CQB that these Plns have to patrol in day in day out. The reason for a selective fire acurized dedicated sharpshooter rifle. This is what the Brits have bought off the shelf. It should give a respectful reach to 600 to 800m but hold its own in an in your face fire fight.

The speed and fact that these new weapon systems are already deployed is gob-smacking considering the normal incompetence and lack of urgency usually encountered with anything new.

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sharpshooters are not a new concept but not really considered since the 1st WW. They are not snipers (Company or Battalion or above asset) but a Pln level weapon system. Again its Afghanistan peculiarity that made the need.</div></div>
"Sharpshooter" has been the mainstream Soviet concept for ages - this is what SVD was designed for. The West didn't really have that - and the Soviets didn't have snipers in Western sense.

Perhaps both sides now understand the need and usability of employing both - Pln-level sharpshooters and detached sniper teams? <span style="font-style: italic">Yes I realize that the Western military evolves more and more into "control freak" mentality, which doesn't bode well for sniper deployment effectiveness.</span>

 

[Emouse]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Muskett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From my armchair: Afghanistan has its own particular rifle requirements and specifically the need for range as normal munitions, artillery, are restricted in use.

The 338lm is the new round on the block. The .50 cal didn't have the accuracy and 308 the range (logistically both forms of ammunition are available within any unit, though not of sniper quality; so bringing an all new round in is highly irregular but in my book great news). Very quickly the 338lm has become pretty standard for snipers and taken up by many countries including the Brits. This round has already achieved some incredible long range results. I actually think the sniper system has reached about as far out as it can practically go with a human behind the trigger (the next stage will be an operator of a firing machine using a digitalized enhanced view finder or something and fire something completely new).

Sharpshooters are not a new concept but not really considered since the 1st WW. They are not snipers (Company or Battalion or above asset) but a Pln level weapon system. Again its Afghanistan peculiarity that made the need.
Individual weapon systems using 5.56 are fine, with Minimi (5.56) or GPMG (7.62) for greater firepower to win the fire fight. But there was also the need for more precision than what they could deliver (minimize collateral damage). The reason for a precision 7.62, however the Pln could not afford to loose the firepower from having a bolt action over an auto in the CQB that these Plns have to patrol in day in day out. The reason for a selective fire acurized dedicated sharpshooter rifle. This is what the Brits have bought off the shelf. It should give a respectful reach to 600 to 800m but hold its own in an in your face fire fight.

The speed and fact that these new weapon systems are already deployed is gob-smacking considering the normal incompetence and lack of urgency usually encountered with anything new. </div></div>

Well written Sir!

 

[Muskett]

Re: Brit Army officially withdraw AW308s from service

I forgot about the SVD's. The AK's, or their derivatives, as individual weapons have never been expected to have much reach without emptying the mag in the general direction. (Don't get me wrong its a fine weapon system). The SVD gave the squad some precision and reach. So yes a Sharpshooters rifle. They also save when trying to conserve ammunition especially when some engagements can take days; accurate fire rather than sustained fire.

The biggest step in individual marksmanship has been the introduction of optics down to individual infantry levels. A rifleman, private or marine can hit something at 300m now and occasionally beyond. This wasn't always the case, bar the odd exceptional individual; well not with iron sights. All relatively new, since the Falklands.

If the 5.56 is good for 300m (a bit floaty beyond) then the 308/7.62 is good to 600m (looses its precision touch beyond) and the 338lm out as far as the conditions and optics allow. Heck, these are individual weapon systems and it takes a peculiar war zone to ever need them to stretch to their maximum ranges. What is normal should be under 200m and a lot under 100m, and anything beyond use heavy weapons. Anything bad take out the grid square.

All credit due to our boys using so much restraint. From my armchair I wouldn't put up with it and would just press the flipping button.