Choosing a small arm infantry weapon for your army

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,633
If you had to choose a postwar small arm infantry weapon to equip your army what weapon would you choose?
The AK47 family seems to offer many advantages..The weapons are usable without much training and are unbreakable They are easy and cheap to obtain.
At the other end of the scale a late model SLR from the British Army will ensure its well trained user can stop an enemy dead at great range.
The M16 has evolved into a large family of weapons..I have rather lost track of what the latest ones are? M8?
Various Sci Fi like weapons such as the West German G11 and the US OICW have come and gone in the meantime.
 
Grew up with the SLR, and heard that our semi-auto version performed better in combat than the auto version the Argentines used in the Falklands, but whether that’s due to training (professional troops vs conscripts) or the guns themselves I don’t know.
 
SLR, not bad. Sterling SMG, not much cop really but a lot of that is down to ammunition supply and handlers thereof. Browning hipower 9mm also a fairly decent piece of kit and while I have fired various different weapons no idea how they would fare in combat use. The Bren was a fine weapon but the sights were annoying what with the vertical mag needing changing fairly frequently. GPMG actually better than the reputation I have read about online.
 
Last edited:
starviking said:
Grew up with the SLR, and heard that our semi-auto version performed better in combat than the auto version the Argentines used in the Falklands, but whether that’s due to training (professional troops vs conscripts) or the guns themselves I don’t know.
Click to expand...
Having fired both the semi-auto FN C1A1 and full-auto FN C2 (Canadian Army) I have concluded that a full-auto, full-bore (7.62 X 51mm NATO) rifle is a waste of ammo at any range longer than" fighting in someone's house." When fired full-auto, the muzzle climbs too fast to keep rounds on target. When fired from the shoulder at very short ranges (15 meters/yards) the first round hits the victim's right hip. The second round hits his left shoulder and the third round wanders off to "only God knows where." For that reason, few armies issued full-auto, full-bore rifles. The vast majority issued only semi-auto rifles (AR-10, G3, M-14, FN FAL/SLR, etc.).

C2 was marginal as a squad light machine gun. C2 was accurate when fired prone, from a bipod, but the magazine only held 30 rounds. When the Canadian Army switched to AR-15 rifles (during the late 1980s) they also adopted the full-bore (7.62 X 51mm NATO), FN MAG as a squad medium machine gun.
 
Last edited:
Your first choice is to narrow down your selection of ammunition.

9 X 19mm Luger/Parabellum is the obvious choice for pistols and submachineguns. But have to ask long and hard if you even need a submachinegun or a carbine version of your assault rifle (say current-issue US Army M-4 carbine.)

Then you have to ask if your terrain favors an assault rifle firing intermediate sized ammo like the Soviet 7.62 X 39mm or NATO 5.56 X 45. 7.62mm allows you to continue using World War 2 vintage barrel and ammo making tools, but in the long run, even Russia switched to 5.45 X 39mm, because they believed that a smaller diameter, higher velocity bullet would be more effective. At best 7.6s X 39mm is an intermediate step in the evolution of small arms ammo.

Full-bore ammo for long-range rifles (out to 1,000 meters) and medium machine guns will be some variant on a .30 caliber/7.62mm, rimless. Rimless is important to simplify feeding in automatic weapons. Junior snipers or designated marksmen will like a full-bore 7.6mm round. 7.62 X 51mm NATO has been the standard since the 1950s.
 
uk 75 said:
If you had to choose a postwar small arm infantry weapon to equip your army what weapon would you choose?
The AK47 family seems to offer many advantages..
The M16 has evolved into a large family of weapons..I have rather lost track of what the latest ones are? M8?
Click to expand...
It depends on what your goals and capabilities are. Is your army well funded and professional? Is it cheap and stocked with unskilled fighters with minimal training and discipline? The AK-47 is a fantastic weapon for the latter... it's cheap, reliable, lasts forever, but is not a *great* weapons in most professional senses, it's simp,y useful for throwing a lot of lead down range with some semblance of accuracy and a dogged determination to not get too jammed up. The M-16 and its descendants are expensive, but they can do far, far more; it's a barbie doll for men, but they require more training and discipline to maintain.

Is your army going to be fighting at long range? Short-ish range? Urban CQB? If the latter, then short, maneuverable arms are best. Shotguns are spectacular when the enemy is Right There, as are sub-guns. Bullpups come witha number of down sides, but being shorter they're better in door-to-door fighting. On the other hand if you are going to be shooting across plains and valleys, then bigger "sniper" type weapons are more important. Consider updated battle rifles such as modernized M-14's.
 
Depending on where you fall on the scale of requirements (US army found the 5.56 low on energy at the ranges encountered in the mountains of Afghanistan) it's very hard to argue against the AR platform today. In fact I'd say the real choice lies in which variant to choose and how to accessorise it. partner it with suitable squad aoutomatics & DMR/sniper gear & you're good to go.
 
riggerrob said:
starviking said:
Grew up with the SLR, and heard that our semi-auto version performed better in combat than the auto version the Argentines used in the Falklands, but whether that’s due to training (professional troops vs conscripts) or the guns themselves I don’t know.
Click to expand...
Having fired both the semi-auto FN C1A1 and full-auto FN C2 (Canadian Army) I have concluded that a full-auto, full-bore (7.62 X 51mm NATO) rifle is a waste of ammo at any range longer than" fighting in someone's house." When fired full-auto, the muzzle climbs too fast to keep rounds on target. When fired from the shoulder at very short ranges (15 meters/yards) the first round hits the victim's right hip. The second round hits his left shoulder and the third round wanders off to "only God knows where." For that reason, few armies issued full-auto, full-bore rifles. The vast majority issued only semi-auto rifles (AR-10, G3, M-14, FN FAL/SLR, etc.).

C2 was marginal as a squad light machine gun. C2 was accurate when fired prone, from a bipod, but the magazine only held 30 rounds. When the Canadian Army switched to AR-15 rifles (during the late 1980s) they also adopted the full-bore (7.62 X 51mm NATO), FN MAG as a squad medium machine gun.
Click to expand...
For me if I were outfitting my imaginary nation post WW2? I would go with the BM-59 chambered in .260 Remington which is basically 6.5x51. Between the recoil reduction in the round and the compensator on the Beretta you should be able to get short bursts of reasonably accurate auto fire and pinpoint single shots; nice flat high energy retention trajectory that is easy on the shoulder and still able to punch through cinder block.
 
Last edited:
The best time to be in the military is when there are no major wars in progress. That worked for me over 60 years ago and I was a platoon leader for a unit tasked with covering fire to protect civilian assets (i.e., covering fire for embassy personnel evacuation). I agree with Orionblamblam, "It depends on what your goals and capabilities are" and every gun is designed to do a specific job best. We were given a free hand and each squad had different weapons. For short range dense antipersonnel fire, .45 caliber Thompson submachine guns, medium range light paratrooper carbines, M1A1 IIRC (NOT M1 Garands) and longer range BARs (3 to the squad, 3 gunners and 6 ammo carriers ). Never had to test whether we had the right formula for our assignment, whew! I agree with Orion blamblam,"It depends on what your goals and capabilities are". Every weapon design is a compromise and optimized for a certain type scenario. The devil is: does the military organization have the training and logistics capability to support the variety of weapons that will permit optimal equipment for individual units tasked with specific range of tasks or must you go with lots of generic units that must do everything, probably some not at the best level.
ArtieBob
 
Last edited:
hagaricus said:
Depending on where you fall on the scale of requirements (US army found the 5.56 low on energy at the ranges encountered in the mountains of Afghanistan) it's very hard to argue against the AR platform today.
Click to expand...
My admittedly vague recollection was that many soldiers wanted to skip straight to a Manly Round such as the 7.62x51/.308, in a rifle akin to the M14. The AK-47 is substantially heavier than the M-16 but not, IIRC, any more accurate at range.
 
Orionblamblam said:
hagaricus said:
Depending on where you fall on the scale of requirements (US army found the 5.56 low on energy at the ranges encountered in the mountains of Afghanistan) it's very hard to argue against the AR platform today.
Click to expand...
My admittedly vague recollection was that many soldiers wanted to skip straight to a Manly Round such as the 7.62x51/.308, in a rifle akin to the M14. The AK-47 is substantially heavier than the M-16 but not, IIRC, any more accurate at range.
Click to expand...
Less anecdotally.

AK is said to be 'usably' accurate to 300m, AR to 450m. The AK's bigger round and lower velocity apparently make it more susceptible to cross winds.
 
he problem with an AK-47 is the sheer variety of manafacture. Russian buid fine but when you get to some of the other sources you can get a real nasty shock, some of them are a bigger hazard to the user than anyone downrange. The Lee Enfield is another case in point with the number made in India, Afghanistan etc being a similar hazard to the user. Cheap does not always mean fit for purpose.
 
hagaricus said:
Depending on where you fall on the scale of requirements (US army found the 5.56 low on energy at the ranges encountered in the mountains of Afghanistan) it's very hard to argue against the AR platform today. In fact I'd say the real choice lies in which variant to choose and how to accessorise it. partner it with suitable squad aoutomatics & DMR/sniper gear & you're good to go.
Click to expand...
The first of the AR-style rifles - with a straight line stock - was the AR-10 chambered in 7.62 X 51mm NATO. A Dutch arsenal made small numbers (under license) for the Portugese fighting in Angola.
Nowadays, you can buy an AR-platform in almost any caliber you want: .22 long rifle, 9 X 19mm Luger/Parabellum, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62 X 39mm Soviet, 7.62 X 51mm NATO, .50 Beowolf, etc..
 
Last edited:
Then we can get into a long and rousing debate about whether to even bother with pistols or submachineguns.
After WW2, a US Army operations research team - or was it a US Army medical team - concluded half the pistol bullets extracted from American soldiers were .45 ACP. When we consider that the USA was the only major nation to us .45 ACP during WW2, we are forced to conclude that .45 ACP was more dangerous to US soldiers than any other pistol caliber.
Without frequent practice, most pistol-shooters are more dangerous to themselves than the enemy. Even the best pistol shots re only lethal at "less than football field length." Stocked pistols: broom-handle Mauser, Artillery Luger, Inglis Browning 9mm, etc. are considerably more accurate in the hands of half-trained soldiers.
Slam-fire submachineguns are only more accurate because of their butt stocks and longer sight radius, but - again - SMGs are only accurate the length of a tennis court, so really only effective when fighting in some one's house. The only toreably accurate SMGs are those that fire from a closed bolt (e.g. Heckler & Koch MP5) but those are far too intricate and expensive until the 1980s.

Pistols and SMGs tend to be issued to cooks, drivers, engineers, gunners, medics, signallers, etc. whose primary mission is not closing with the enemy. Those suport troops need some sort of personal defense weapon, but not a full-blown infantry rifle. They need some sort of short weapon that will not interfere with their primary mission (e.g. building bridges). For that role, I advocate an SMFG with a folding stock or bullpup configuration. That bullpup should eject empty cartridges downwards or forwards, away from the shooter's face. One advantage of a bullpup configuration is that it can use a reasonable length barrel (16 or 18 inches) which doubles muzzle energy compared with a short pistol barrel. Doubled muzzle energy improves: range, accuracy and lethality.

Mind you, by the year 2,000 assault rifle performance had improved to where they rival SMGs in length and weight, but can still be built short enough (see US Army M4 carbine) to fulfill the PDW role.
 
First of all:

1) How big is my army and how exactly its infantry is composed?

2) Which weapon and ammo it used before?

3) What are the most probable environmental conditions my army would be expected to fight in?

4) Who are most probable adversaries, how they are organized and armed?

5) How much money could I spend on firearms and who are my most common suppliers?
 
Dilandu. Excellent parameters.
You will notice that I mentioned a whole range of possible weapons so I leave the parameters to you.
 
A light recoil LMG is great for light infantry. It will ease training and improve accuracy.

OTOH Guns that can be converted from one to another caliber are amusing for gun geeks, but impractical for conscripts ... or any short-service soldiers. On a practical level, caliber conversions are best left to the regimental armorer.

This gets us back to the choice of ammo and choice of ammo supplier. A small army can only afford two or three calibers for its ENTIRE armed forces: army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, border patrol, police, presidential body guards, etc.
 
If I had to choose right now. It would come down to what is available. Arguably there are only a few military rifles in large scale production.
Ammunition is a vexing conundrum.
But availability of supply matters most.

If I had to choose back in 1950 for the UK......I'd ask to choose after 1957 instead ;)

Snipers however are moving away from 7.62 to 338 and similar.
 
zen said:
If I had to choose right now. It would come down to what is available. Arguably there are only a few military rifles in large scale production.
Ammunition is a vexing conundrum.
But availability of supply matters most.

If I had to choose back in 1950 for the UK......I'd ask to choose after 1957 instead ;)

Snipers however are moving away from 7.62 to 338 and similar.
Click to expand...
Designated marksmen fire 7.62 X 51mm NATO ammo.
Dedicated snipers train with 7.62mm out to a kilometer (1,000 meters), but convert to .338 Lapua for longer ranges.
Browning .50 caliber (12.5mm) is obsolete for sniping.
 
I might have standardized on something like the .270 British which was a close relative to the .280 but a bit lighter/higher velocity. The design itself would be pretty similar to the AR-15 or the Stoner 63. Perhaps I'd supplement this with a squad marksman rifle in .30 caliber or 7.62mm NATO similar in concept to what the Soviets did with the SVD.
 
The best round to stop someone dead is an expanding bullet. Ideally as big as possible.

Though the future may hold interesting potential in piezoelectric charged rounds.

But against armour, something different is needed. Even at the cost of individual effectiveness.

The Russians have made some interesting developments.
 
zen said:
The best round to stop someone dead is an expanding bullet. Ideally as big as possible.

Though the future may hold interesting potential in piezoelectric charged rounds.

But against armour, something different is needed. Even at the cost of individual effectiveness.

The Russians have made some interesting developments.
Click to expand...
Expanding bullets are banned by the Geneva Convention because they increase the work-load of medics.
 
Orionblamblam said:
riggerrob said:
.
Browning .50 caliber (12.5mm) is obsolete for sniping.
Click to expand...

50 BMG was never meant to be a sniper round. It was always meant to punch big holes in big things, rather than precision fire.
Click to expand...
The US Army originally issued .50 caliber anti-material rifles to explosive ordinance demolition teams dis-arming road side bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those EOD technicians perferred to blow wires off of suspected roadside bombs from a distance. If they also detonated a roadside bomb from a distance (say 1 kilometer) that was one fewer bomb to bother with.

Police prefer to use shotguns or water-cannons to blow wires off of suspected bombs.
 
Russian ShAK-12 uses a .50 cal round for CQB in urban environments. Quite an interesting take on solving requirements for such.
 
zen said:
Russian ShAK-12 uses a .50 cal round for CQB in urban environments. Quite an interesting take on solving requirements for such.
Click to expand...
ShAK-12 fires a 12.5 X 55mm round that is roughly equivalent to the American .50 Beowolf. ShAK-12 ammo is based a straight-walled cartridge that is derived from the .338 Lapua ammo currently fashionable with snipers. ShAK is a specialized sub-sonic ammo optimized for short-range fighting in some one's house.
In comparison, the American .50 Beowolf (12.7 x 42mm) fires a heavy, sub-sonic bullet designed to crack windshields of those foolish enough to try and run road blocks in Iraq. Beowolf can be fired from re-barreled AR-15s. Beowolf magazines fit into stock, STANAG, AR-15 magazine wells and will accommodate 5 Beowolf rounds or ten 5.56 X 45mm rounds.
 
Of course, the STs-130 for the ShAK-12 is a 12.7x55 mm round. As you say, the case is simply a shortened 8.58x70 mm Lapua.

You could also claim that the .50 Beowulf has a Russian connection. Because the 12.7x42 mm Beowulf springs from Alexander Arms, similarities to the Grendel round are emphasized. But Grendel, itself, derived from the Soviet 7.62x39 mm case.
 
Apophenia said:
Of course, the STs-130 for the ShAK-12 is a 12.7x55 mm round. As you say, the case is simply a shortened 8.58x70 mm Lapua.

You could also claim that the .50 Beowulf has a Russian connection. Because the 12.7x42 mm Beowulf springs from Alexander Arms, similarities to the Grendel round are emphasized. But Grendel, itself, derived from the Soviet 7.62x39 mm case.
Click to expand...
Agreed! Plagarism is rife in the arms industry.
But the conclusion of discussion about AK-12 and Beowolf ammo is that it is strictly short-range and ill-suited to a small army that is trying to narrow down a short-list (say 3) of ammo types to equip all its troops.
 
From a strictly limited current experience basis, I thought ther SA-80 had been thoroughly sorted and it is a reasonable package so for the timeline here, the EN-2 would seem to be useful for the infantry squad and mechanised units but, keep the LE for ceremonials. The SA-80 gives Household troops a bit of an Action Man look. Sorry it just does.

Pistols, well the Browning was in and around, was a handy piece of kit for the time and well known.

Squad support, the GPMG.

Sniper, well the Lapua .338 ia also well known with a good rep. Hell it can be put to all sorts of weapons without issues. As for anti materiel, the .50 perhaps or the alternative .60 tested and used for aircraft fitment about that time. Why has no specialist sniper round been designed for .50/.60?
Sorry folks, should have checked first, apparently there is a series of rounds developed. https://www.gd-ots.com/munitions/small-caliber-ammunition/sniper-elite/
 
Last edited:
@Dilandu has the list of questions that an Army needs to be asking in these situations.

That said, a cartridge firing a 140gr projectile at roughly 2400fps for ~2000ft-lbs energy (9g at 770m/s, 2600J) seems to be the optimum for putting a man down and out of the fight. Not too much recoil, not much need of multiple hits. 6.5mm Arisaka, .280 British, heavy loaded 6.5 Grendel...

If I am looking to feed both machine guns and infantry rifles from the same ammunition, then that's about the best option. We can argue between 6.5mm and 7.62mm for caliber, but I'd lean towards 6.5 or 6.8, depending on where you're planning on fighting. In closer terrain, the 6.8mm offers better wounding, in open terrain the 6.5mm offers flatter shooting. 7.62mm will be rather short ranged even with spitzer bullets because of the low ballistic coefficient. The downside is that 6.5mm doesn't leave much space for the interesting loads like what you'd put into a machine gun. Small AP cores, not much space for tracers, etc.

If I can design my own stuff without caring about what else is out there, I'd want a longer cartridge than the 5.56x45 or 6.5 Grendel in rifles and MGs. Don't have to go as long as the 7.62x51, but that long 9g bullet is taking up space in the cartridge case that you would prefer to fill with powder. Also, things like tracers or AP cores are less dense than lead, so an AP bullet would be longer than a plain FMJ. Wouldn't take much, maybe 3mm more overall length with the same case volume. So call it 6.8x39mm with an 11.2mm base diameter (yes, good old M43 case as the foundation, because it's just big enough), case overall length of 60.5mm (6.5 Grendel case but 6.8mm bullets and 3mm longer OAL).

If we are not feeding rifles and MGs from the same ammunition caliber, then we can discuss going smaller on the individual rifles, and/or keeping the 6.8x39 in the rifles and going larger on the MGs. I personally would not want to go much smaller than 6mm for the individual rifle projectile.

For going bigger on the MGs, I'm quite a fan of .338 caliber, though the .338 Norma is better for magazine or belt fed weapons than Lapua. This wouldn't be for every belt fed in the army, though. The squad automatics in each fireteam would be something low recoil like that Surefire MGX or a Knights LAMG, in the rifle caliber. The platoon tripod MGs and vehicle MGs would be 8.6x63mm, and built to fire for greatly extended periods (like the difference between an M60 and an FN MAG).

For pistols, I might actually get weird and go with .40S&W. Loading that to .45acp weights and speeds gives tolerable recoil with good terminal effect, and would let you build a PDW/SMG for your rear echelon troops that works like the FN P90. .40S&W (and 10mm) are very straight walled cases, so would fit into that style of magazine without trouble. More recoil than the 5.7 version, of course. Otherwise, I'd mess with 5.7x28 or similar as the pistol and rear echelon troop weapon caliber. Not totally happy with the 5.7, to be honest, because of how long it is. My Five-seveN was a reach to the trigger, even though the grip was nice and narrow.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom