- Thread starter Laseredge
- Start date
Thanks for posting that. While I very much like Ian, i can't quite believe that AI got through the door as just two guys in a shed. There was some VERY strong political pull that got the L96A1 adopted over the Parker Hales (M82, M85 and M87). And, it's very true, there are a lot of Parker Hale diehards in the establishment whose opinions got stomped on. Parker Hale was doing a lot of the groundwork for the MOD in the various experiments as to what worked better. And, the fact they got pushed out say's "politics".
In any case, the rifle got the nickname "green meanie" because it's so big and heavy. By the end of a long movement, you felt it for a while after carrying one of those.
In any case, the rifle got the nickname "green meanie" because it's so big and heavy. By the end of a long movement, you felt it for a while after carrying one of those.
Yeah, the upstart AI stealing the contract from PH does reek of politics. As an owner of 2 AI rifles, I for one am happy that it happened. I am looking forward to the teased at AI book, and more episodes on AI rifles on FW.
I will say AI brought some innovation to the table that wasn't there before. Most notably, modularity in the bolt action sniper rifle. We've had switch barrels before, but they were for highly-funded, low-publicity groups only. The ability to change cartridge as required without changing rifle is a big deal. But, those components have to be controlled or they get lost! That didn't come out until later, but the L96 was the start of that.
I am a Parker Hale fan, but I do acknowledge, they got led around by the MOD too much in that every innovation got pushed off by the standard "We never do that..." So, it took an outsider to come in with new ideas. PH was all too willing to acquiesce to MOD when MOD needed to back out and let the inventors invent.
I am a Parker Hale fan, but I do acknowledge, they got led around by the MOD too much in that every innovation got pushed off by the standard "We never do that..." So, it took an outsider to come in with new ideas. PH was all too willing to acquiesce to MOD when MOD needed to back out and let the inventors invent.
Something about the L96 I never knew is that they destroyed them all. What a waste. It would be great if someone made replica L96 skins that could be fixed to an AT or AW action for us retro fans. The action looks near identical.
It is my understanding that the PH Model 85 was slightly more accurate than the AI design BUT the life cycle cost for the L96 was significantly lower. It is also worth bearing in mind that:
whilst the Model 85 appears to meet and exceed the requirements set out by Sgt. (ret.) Douglas Mark de Haas, former USMC Scout- sniper Instructor in 1968, time moves on.
I personally prefer the look and design of the Model 85 but it is mildly pathetic that the Brits firstly rebarrelled their sniper rifles to use a shorter-ranged cartridge (7.62x51 NATO, a VERY bad joke as a machine gun cartridge in the Falklands) and then bought a heavier rifle, chambered for that same shorter-ranged cartridge.
Then again, I learned years ago, THE ARMY DOES NOT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE.
whilst the Model 85 appears to meet and exceed the requirements set out by Sgt. (ret.) Douglas Mark de Haas, former USMC Scout- sniper Instructor in 1968, time moves on.
I personally prefer the look and design of the Model 85 but it is mildly pathetic that the Brits firstly rebarrelled their sniper rifles to use a shorter-ranged cartridge (7.62x51 NATO, a VERY bad joke as a machine gun cartridge in the Falklands) and then bought a heavier rifle, chambered for that same shorter-ranged cartridge.
Then again, I learned years ago, THE ARMY DOES NOT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE.
It's one of those things where it's hard to get ballistics across to people. In this case the British Army. The Mk VIII ammo was definitely more capable in range than the 7.62. But, it had already gone by the wayside in favor of "all getting on the U.S. page of ballistics. Unfortunately, hard headed minds on the U.S. side of ballistics don't seem to think range is necessary. Bullet efficiency is not the right answer, if they didn't come up with it.
I have suspected for a while, that:
One of the main reasons for the U.S. to push the T65 (7.62x51) cartridge as the standard NATO round was the growing status of the 7.92x57IS sS load, adopted for machine guns in 1917 and standardised for all German use in 1935; as the de facto machine gun round in Europe. It was the standard machine gun round in all German-, Czech- and British-built tanks in WWII, was introduced to match the French Balle D round and provided impetus for development of the British MKVIII load (mentioned by @sandwarrior) which was adopted in 1939 (for belt-fed machine guns only).
One of the main reasons for the U.S. to push the T65 (7.62x51) cartridge as the standard NATO round was the growing status of the 7.92x57IS sS load, adopted for machine guns in 1917 and standardised for all German use in 1935; as the de facto machine gun round in Europe. It was the standard machine gun round in all German-, Czech- and British-built tanks in WWII, was introduced to match the French Balle D round and provided impetus for development of the British MKVIII load (mentioned by @sandwarrior) which was adopted in 1939 (for belt-fed machine guns only).
I'm not following you on this. Maybe I'm thinking too literally, though. The T-65 didn't come out until after WWII. It's civilian parent cartridge came out after WWI (1920). At that point (1947), the 7.92x57IS was done. Not because it was ineffective or obsolete, it was basically outlawed as a military cartridge. MkVIII was used all the way up until the U.S. shoved the 7.62 down everyone's throat. That would be well into the 1960's.
If you meant that the point was adopting one cartridge for all machine guns and rifles, I would totally agree with that. One standard. And, that lesson was taken to heart. Unfortunately, we had an ego-maniac on the U.S. Bureau of Ordnance that used all the politics he could to push "our" round. Just because it's bigger doesn't mean it's better.
A couple caveats though. In the 1920's there was a study done by the U.S. to see if there was an adequate (effective) cartridge, we could get into that didn't recoil as much as the 30-06. It came out of that study that the .250-3000 was pretty much the ticket. Meanwhile Garand was developing what we now know as the M1 Garand, but in .276 Pederson. Both ideas got quashed by Gen. Douglass MacArthur. He of later fame for abandoning his troops in the Philipines. These were both rifle cartridges and not adopted for machine guns. So, prior to that, at least there were people thinking outside the box.
It's interesting to me that the thought always goes to "bigger is more effective". Efficiency, inherent of lighter cartridges, always seems to be the last prerequisite of cartridge choice. This was most apparent pre-WWI when the Brits were trying to adopt the .276 Enfield. A cartridge of almost 7mm Rem mag power.
Last edited:
My point, was that the heavy bullet sS 8mm load is probably the best rimless cartridge for a general purpose i.e. belt-fed support machine gun. If it ain’t broke don’t try to fix it.
I possibly should have mentioned that before WWII the 7.92x57 was also adopted by Poland and Turkey and that, for a while, the French had postwar construction Panther tanks equipped with machine guns using that load.
In short:
The Russians kept their 7.62x54 cartridge for support, i.e. belt-fed machine guns (and sniper rifles);
The Swedes adopted a special heavy 8mm (obviously inspired by the pre-WWI 8a64 Brenneke trials cartridge) for their belt-fed Browning machine guns;
The Yugoslavs kept using the 7.92x57 and (post-WWII) making the SARAC (MG42) machine gun;
The British could have changed over to the 7.92x57IS sS round with relative ease because the BREN was convertible, using Inglis breechblocks (as done for the 7.62 NATO conversions) and new barrels. The BESA gun was still standard for British tanks AND Browning .30 cal guns could easily have been converted.
I was not suggesting the adoption of full-power 8mm service rifles. We both know that the moves by Italy and Japan to adopt larger rifle rounds after WWI were principally to improve tracer burnout performance in belt-fed machine gun applications AND that the standardisation by the German Army of the sS load in 1935 caused problems for riflemen, i.e heavier recoil of their bolt-action rifles and higher ammo weight.
The Swedes appear to have made the better choice by adopting an 8mm round for belt-fed guns only but possibly could have done better by simply adopting the sS load for the 7.92x57IS chambering. The experiment with ‘98 action rifles, chambered to the new round to simplify MG crew ammo logistics, was a reported failure due to the even greater firing recoil of the Swedish cartridge.
Internal U.S. Army politics, however, got in the way of logical solutions to the NATO cartridge debates. Great discussing this subject with you.
I possibly should have mentioned that before WWII the 7.92x57 was also adopted by Poland and Turkey and that, for a while, the French had postwar construction Panther tanks equipped with machine guns using that load.
In short:
The Russians kept their 7.62x54 cartridge for support, i.e. belt-fed machine guns (and sniper rifles);
The Swedes adopted a special heavy 8mm (obviously inspired by the pre-WWI 8a64 Brenneke trials cartridge) for their belt-fed Browning machine guns;
The Yugoslavs kept using the 7.92x57 and (post-WWII) making the SARAC (MG42) machine gun;
The British could have changed over to the 7.92x57IS sS round with relative ease because the BREN was convertible, using Inglis breechblocks (as done for the 7.62 NATO conversions) and new barrels. The BESA gun was still standard for British tanks AND Browning .30 cal guns could easily have been converted.
I was not suggesting the adoption of full-power 8mm service rifles. We both know that the moves by Italy and Japan to adopt larger rifle rounds after WWI were principally to improve tracer burnout performance in belt-fed machine gun applications AND that the standardisation by the German Army of the sS load in 1935 caused problems for riflemen, i.e heavier recoil of their bolt-action rifles and higher ammo weight.
The Swedes appear to have made the better choice by adopting an 8mm round for belt-fed guns only but possibly could have done better by simply adopting the sS load for the 7.92x57IS chambering. The experiment with ‘98 action rifles, chambered to the new round to simplify MG crew ammo logistics, was a reported failure due to the even greater firing recoil of the Swedish cartridge.
Internal U.S. Army politics, however, got in the way of logical solutions to the NATO cartridge debates. Great discussing this subject with you.
I see what you are saying now. And I agree. Enjoying the discussion as well.
As you mention, keeping the heavier loaded round for heavier duty (machine guns) would have been the way to go. The heavier round could have been used in the rifles if necessary but not standard issue for them.
It took ten years of pushing to actually get the 7.62x51 adopted here, let alone Europe and allies. In ten years time after, we had again morphed into the even smaller 5.56 as our main round while leaving all support weapons in the 7.62x51. I'm sure someone on our side (NATO) would like us to make up our mind. Still, it's the light/heavy mix of rifle and machinegun.
I for one thought the 7.62 was a bit light for a GP machine gun. For anti-personnel, it was outstanding. A heavier round would have been better for an all around gun. Better penetration of hard objects, like vehicles, walls, trees was needed. As to our standard battle round now, The killing capability of the M193 in the slow twisted early M16's was phenomenal. It was still good in the 1-12" twist -A1's. That went to shit with the M855 in the 1-17" twist. But, it was rectified quite well with the adoption of the heavier 77 gr. bullets.
Last edited:
Similar threads
