British section level weapons

A round you cannot name?

The equipment for the British army infantry sections is not fixed and is changed regularly to meet demand.

Plenty of weapons viable but are not currently used but still kept and deployed when needed.

some bong tell me the lost history of the sa80 lsw being used for dmr duty later on.

Sort of, yes. My point was more that countries will stupidly overlook a better design in favor of "but this one was made by our guys." The m14 and SA80 both being pretty fucking awful cases.

The LSW was intended and used early on as essentially the same role as the M27 IAR. However, it turned out to be utter shit and not worth the hassle. Later on though, when there was urgent demand for longer range section weapons, some LSWs came out of storage and saw limited use as DMRs, mainly due to their longer effective range.

thanks nigel. found that shit fascinating.

>So britbongs kicked out their Minimi Para (L110A3). What they will replace it with, is there final decision?
The Quran.

Attached: 1432326433479.jpg (225x225, 11K)

No worries. Obviously it was only a stopgap implementation that was quickly phased out due to the need for a harder hitting round out at further ranges, hence why the current DMR in 7.62 real fuckin NATO was purchased under UORs.

There were serveral of which i don't know the names.

But generally all 4mm-7mm

The most promising was probably 6.25×43mm designed for use in the EM-2.

When Australia decided to replace their FALs in the 80s they first briefly adopted the M16A1. They'd used it a bit in Vietnam and liked it. But, Colt refused to sell the manufacturing license, Colt wanted to make the rifles and ship them to Australia. Today, that doesn't seem that bad, now that H&K manufactures service rifles for 1/2 of western armies. But it was a pretty crazy demand at the time, so Australia just said 'fuck that' and adopted the AUG instead, manufacturing license included. So, Colt is maybe the reason why everybody didn't else didn't adopt the AR.

Attached: HEpX-8yuPhtcVB9ib-kDDgUNczsnkYlXAmTkHyGcwyo.jpg (885x660, 107K)

.280

yeah that was just slightly less powerful than 7.62 M80 FMJ

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""intermediate""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

>it's another stupid American says something wrong episode

The American military industrial complex shit the bed. They did the same thing to Canada with their jets.
youtu.be/fcYj2SpUHvE

>7.62x51
>M16

Attached: CC19629F-7B66-481B-9A9C-D65E5AD3F944.png (2438x1175, 685K)

>you are wrong, let me prove it by making an unrelated assertion without evidence

Yet far smaller, the case is pretty much the same size as 6.8mm and the round is only sligtly longer, both being smaller than 7.62 NATO.

EM2 and .280 FAL should have been adopted, not the fucking M14.

Does make you wonder if NATO had adopted the FAL in something outside of the full retard .308 round where we'd be today. If we'd ended up with a rifle that wasn't nearly as terrible as the M14 was for fighting in Vietnam we probably wouldn't have adopted the AR15 as the M16. No M16 means no 5.56, no direct impingement system, and the AR becomes relegated to something known only to obsessive viewers of Forgotten Weapons. On the bright side NATO actually has an actually standardized rifle and round that doesn't get abandoned a couple years after it's temper tantrum rooted adoption.