stubbornbugger Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I just hope the head of procurement enjoyed his free skiing holiday and bag of cash. Link to post Share on other sites
darkchild130 Posted October 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 It's a load of political ######! What are the going to replace the L85 with? Josh The L85 doesnt need to be replaced, its a superb assault rifle. Its staying til at least 2025. Darkhild Link to post Share on other sites
Matty1713 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Hang on, isn't the HK417 an assault rifle? If the L85 isn't getting replaced till 2025 why would you want to get a load of HK417s? My apologies if there is something I dont understand, you are the expert after all. Link to post Share on other sites
Kyrian_Zenda Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 It would be used as a DMR; that is, a marksman's rifle, issued in limited numbers. darkchild, am I right in thinking that ######-tastic LM7 would replace the L86 LSW? Link to post Share on other sites
Azulsky Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Is Crye making a temperate and arid version of multicam DPM or just one or the other. Meaning i can see them only reinventing the temperate as the regular stuff is g2g for arid/semi-arid. Link to post Share on other sites
askeytheman Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 The LSW is a support weapon. Each section would still get one. Think of it in American military terms. The M4 is the basic rifle, the M249 is the support weapon and the M14 is the DMR. The LM7 is the M14. As far as I can tell, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
spetsnazdave87 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 The LM7 is the M14 only without the looks, functionality or auto capability fixed Link to post Share on other sites
Elias Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 The LSW is a support weapon. Each section would still get one. Think of it in American military terms. The M4 is the basic rifle, the M249 is the support weapon and the M14 is the DMR. The LM7 is the M14. As far as I can tell, anyway. biggrin.gif I don't believe that's quite correct. Since the introduction of the FN Minimi in the British Army, the LSW has been designated as a "marksman's rifle". So this new one would supposedly phase that one out, keeping the L85A2 as the standard rifle, the LM7 as the designated marksman's rifle and the L108A1 (FN Minimi) as the squad support weapon. J Link to post Share on other sites
Jordan94 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 whats the point in having trials then its obvious that the 417 is the better gun, but they still pick the LM7 Not enought eqipment, and then picking inferior weapons ignoring the soldiers Link to post Share on other sites
spetsnazdave87 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 BAE dont have anything to do with this do they? Link to post Share on other sites
Kyrian_Zenda Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 The LSW is a support weapon. Each section would still get one. Think of it in American military terms. The M4 is the basic rifle, the M249 is the support weapon and the M14 is the DMR. The LM7 is the M14. As far as I can tell, anyway. I know what it's supposed to be, but what use is a support weapon that only carries 30 rounds in a magazine? As Elias rightly pointed out, the LSW has been used as a DMR for a while now, due to the high accuracy the longer, heavier barrel gives it. I think darkchild himself was the source of this piece of information, think he mentioned carrying it and hating it. Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I thought the minimi was going to be replaced by the LSW? Link to post Share on other sites
LordElpus Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 I thought the minimi was going to be replaced by the LSW? It was the other way around. The barrel on the LSW is reputed not to be able to handle long periods of sustained fire.. not that it's a problem as it would be bloody comfortable to use a box mag with the LSW. Link to post Share on other sites
pjones Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 It's a *fruitcage* joke. That LM7 is a bloody civvy target rifle not a bloody combat rifle. Was the final choice made by some ones wife/girlfriend/rent boy who just picked what they thought was the prettiest? Can anyone else see HK being asked to do a refit on the LM7 in about 2-3 years when the higher ups finally realise they *fruitcage*ed up and HK will end up fitting an adjustable stock, gas piston and new barrel bringing the total cost per weapon above the cost of buying 417s in the first place. Not really. The US Army and Navy, the IDF and the Australians have been using something similar (the SR-25) in combat for years and have had no problems. I suspect that this had a bit more to do with it than most here would care to admit. Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 So the guy that tested both is wrong because some other armys use something similar to the thing that was chosen? Link to post Share on other sites
vowlesy Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Well duhh! Link to post Share on other sites
sturgis Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Not really. The US Army and Navy, the IDF and the Australians have been using something similar (the SR-25) in combat for years and have had no problems. I suspect that this had a bit more to do with it than most here would care to admit. Forgive me if i'm off, but isn't the LM7 chambered in 5.56 NATO, very much unlike the SR-25 ? Link to post Share on other sites
mattmanic Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Forgive me if i'm off, but isn't the LM7 chambered in 5.56 NATO, very much unlike the SR-25 ? It looks like it is 7.62. I can't find anything on teh interwebs about it but I think I can see .308 on the side. Link to post Share on other sites
Samm Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 Forgive me if i'm off, but isn't the LM7 chambered in 5.56 NATO, very much unlike the SR-25 ? It's chambered for .308 Win; http://www.tactical-life.com/online/tactic...on-lmt-308-mws/ Apparently Lewis M&T supply them with 6 pos. SOPMOD stocks also, whether the MOD will take this onboard or not is anyones guess. Link to post Share on other sites
sturgis Posted October 18, 2009 Report Share Posted October 18, 2009 ah ok, that makes more sense indeed Link to post Share on other sites
pjones Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 So the guy that tested both is wrong because some other armys use something similar to the thing that was chosen? Not necessarily wrong but it's ridiculous to say, as many here have, that the LM7 is grossly inferior to the HK417 based on popular myths about its gas impingement system. Neither of them is a "bad" gun, but the system used in the LM7 has definitely had more time to have the kinks worked out of it than the 417. According to Wikipedia, RM 3 Commando has used the 417. I wonder if they had any negative experiences that may have influenced the selection process? Link to post Share on other sites
Kyrian_Zenda Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Um, it's already been posted that the LM7 is a civilian rifle, whereas the 417 is designed for military use. It's also been posted (by the OP, someone who tests weapons and kit for the British Army before decisions are made) that the 417 is superior to the LM7. What more do you need? A video of the LM7 exploding whilst a 417 watches on and laughs? Link to post Share on other sites
Skarclaw Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Not necessarily wrong but it's ridiculous to say, as many here have, that the LM7 is grossly inferior to the HK417 based on popular myths about its gas impingement system. Neither of them is a "bad" gun, but the system used in the LM7 has definitely had more time to have the kinks worked out of it than the 417. According to Wikipedia, RM 3 Commando has used the 417. I wonder if they had any negative experiences that may have influenced the selection process? The guy above me said it alot better, but I know that I'd trust a serving soilder who has experience in the selection process over just some airsofter. I know sweet fook all about real arms, but I know enough that a "match" barrel probably isn't great for combat use. But whatever. Link to post Share on other sites
ED-SKaR Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 It was the other way around. The barrel on the LSW is reputed not to be able to handle long periods of sustained fire.. not that it's a problem as it would be bloody comfortable to use a box mag with the LSW. The L86 is issued with boxmags!! The entire SA80 series is issued with the same boxmags exept the l22 that has the shorter ones (though still uses the 30 rounders) So this LM7 is taking over the DMR role from the L86. Just like the Minimi took over the role of LSW from the L86. I also heard that a lot of the L22a1s where beeing made from the L86a2s. Seems like nobody likes the L86 at all. Just as i buy the ICS . Just my luck. Link to post Share on other sites
T3CH Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I think he means drum mag. And yet again HM Gov. make a questionable decision during purchasing Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.