.280 British Stats?

[Ji ji]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I'm not sure what you mean, you posted as though you had found some new found aspect to this debate, Rupert and I pointed out that not only was this not some newly discovered thing but had already been mentioned in this thread (and if you reread you own posts you will see that you have already responded to posts bringing it up).

To be honest I'm not quite sure what you are looking for here. You raised some points and they have been addressed. You seem to be basing your argument on assumptions and those basic assumptions have also been addressed.

In this discussion you have brought the point, in the last debate I read it was brought too, in those other discussions on other forums I referred before it is often overlooked. I reckon your point. Hope it is clear now.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

OK what have you brought?

Because yeah OK it could be a 5.56 conspiracy and we've all been duped (including the army surgeon you are responding to above). Or it could just be this is actually an old debate and really the questions you are proposing in an attempt to bring organisational performance management* into this, aren't new and have been answered before and here.

*on which you seem to have conflated anecdotes for "field data"

No conspiracy, just standard problems of performance management. Army is an organisation and has issues as any other.
There are army surgeons deeming the 5.56 inadequate, and their opinion is relevant too. I am glad to get the informed opinion of another forum member, more so if he talks with first-hand experience; but a surgeon is not a performance manager.

[warellis]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

No conspiracy, just standard problems of performance management. Army is an organisation and has issues as any other.
There are army surgeons deeming the 5.56 inadequate, and their opinion is relevant too. I am glad to get the informed opinion of another forum member, more so if he talks with first-hand experience; but a surgeon is not a performance manager.

The problem with the Army's claims about 5.56 M855A1 not offering enough armor penetration is that 7.62 M80A1 ammo will also not penetrate Level IV body armor.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

In this discussion you have brought the point, in the last debate I read it was brought too, in those other discussions on other forums I referred before it is often overlooked. I reckon your point. Hope it is clear now.



No conspiracy, just standard problems of performance management. Army is an organisation and has issues as any other.
There are army surgeons deeming the 5.56 inadequate, and their opinion is relevant too. I am glad to get the informed opinion of another forum member, more so if he talks with first-hand experience; but a surgeon is not a performance manager.

OK while I agree there can be performance management issues in organisations (and the world of military procurement and assessment is certainly not immune from that), it is not certain that there is organisation management issues in the context you have raised.

Your premise seems to be that because there are anecdotes decrying the performance of the 5.56 that must be indicative of an underlying issue (weather one rooted in performance management or not). I think that suggestion has been addressed.


Well unless this is devil's advocacy to stress test the case, in which case OK, but again I think the case has been addressed.

[Anaraxes]

GURPS has room for ethnic cool katanas and Lakota tomahawks. So I'm sure it could make room for ethnic cool rifle cartridges as well.

[Ji ji]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

OK while I agree there can be performance management issues in organisations (and the world of military procurement and assessment is certainly not immune from that), it is not certain that there is organisation management issues in the context you have raised.

Your premise seems to be that because there are anecdotes decrying the performance of the 5.56 that must be indicative of an underlying issue (weather one rooted in performance management or not). I think that suggestion has been addressed.

Well unless this is devil's advocacy to stress test the case, in which case OK, but again I think the case has been addressed.

Yes, I am totally playing the devil’s advocate. I am not saying “5.56 is bad”, I am saying “considering the circumstances of 5.56 adoption following the refusal of .270/.280 British, I would love to make an internal audit/investigation on the topic”.

I could well discover that the Army assesment is sound and 5.56 is the best option. BTW I do believe that an intermediate cartridge would be a better choice, but it’s just my prejudice.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

Yes, I am totally playing the devil’s advocate. I am not saying “5.56 is bad”, I am saying “considering the circumstances of 5.56 adoption following the refusal of .270/.280 British, I would love to make an internal audit/investigation on the topic”.

.

In my understanding the .280 British and the 5.56mm were separated by at least 15 years. I doubt any serious connection can be made at all.

Speaking of serious, I doubt serious consideration was ever given to the .280 in the US. After all the British we're arguing for a rifle cartridge that gave up a small amount of damage (1 pt in Gurps) for marginal advantages in other areas. That's what the US Army did with the 7.62mm NATO. They just started with the 30-06 instead of the .303 British.

It was going from the 7.62 mm to the 5.56mm that was the big leap for the Army but though they gave up a significant amount of damage they got a rifle that was 1/3rd lighter and shot ammo that was slightly less than half as heavy and was usable in full auto in mobile combat.

No .280 rifle would have provided anything like those benefits. The 5.56 even had the talking point that while it was much smaller it was significantly faster. The .280 was just smaller and slower. Not a lot of stuff there you can use with
Fast Talk.

So there never was any actual competition between the .280 and 5.56mm. There was no actual .280 rifle the Army could have bought instead of the 5.56mm.

[Ji ji]

Have you read the whole topic or just the last posts? Because many of the points you are issuing have already been debated.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Bottom line: There are people who hate 5.56x45mm for no justifiable reason. Anecdotes are just that- anecdotes. There is perfectly fine real-world combat data about its performance.

Steering back towards the original topic, it's interesting that the British Army doesn't seem to complain about 5.56. They do complain, bitterly, about the L85 rifle family they fire it from, which is heavy and complicated, and used to be extremely unreliable and fragile, although it's now somewhat better. There is some nostalgia for the FN-FAL, which was a lot more durable.

Since L85 is a bullpup, they've never had to deal with short-barreled carbines, and they don't expect 5.56 to be a long-ranged cartridge. They issue modern 7.62 rifles for that job.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

Have you read the whole topic or just the last posts? Because many of the points you are issuing have already been debated.

Who are you talking to?

[warellis]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Steering back towards the original topic, it's interesting that the British Army doesn't seem to complain about 5.56. They do complain, bitterly, about the L85 rifle family they fire it from, which is heavy and complicated, and used to be extremely unreliable and fragile, although it's now somewhat better. There is some nostalgia for the FN-FAL, which was a lot more durable.

Since L85 is a bullpup, they've never had to deal with short-barreled carbines, and they don't expect 5.56 to be a long-ranged cartridge. They issue modern 7.62 rifles for that job.

The L85 was horribly, and incredibly poorly designed. Forgotten Weapons has done videos on just how awful the L85A1 was when it was first unveiled and how everything in it had to be fixed by H&K, a German division of BAE: https://youtu.be/gDCRop6CRwY

Speaking of bullpup rifles, many militaries seem to be replacing them with conventional rifles I've noticed.

Apparently bullpups have a number of problems:
Do Bullpups Have A Better Balance? A Different Perspective
What's Killing The Bullpup (and How To Cure It)
Which Is Better? Bullpup or Conventional?