Replacing the British Army rifle

[TomS]

Eliminating cookoff is certainly desirable, but this seems like a very heavy and bulky way to do it (they claim to be comparable in weight to conventional cartridges, which even if true is pretty unfortunate as we are moving to lightweight polymer or alloy cases). Polymer case telescoped ammunition (CTA) seems to be similarly cookoff-proof, based on experimental results from LSAT, and is a good deal lighter. Keeping the chamber from heating up in the first place seems like a better bet than throwing away a lot of heated mass every few shots.

Very high ROF is not necessarily desirable, since it means recoil will be quite stout (5 x .243 all at once!), especially without any mechanical action to soak it up. I suppose you could float the whole action and get some really fast burst action as in the G11 but suddenly complexity is creeping back in. I've seen the claim that rapid shots would crack ceramic plates in heavy body armor, but that's asking for an awful lot of repeatability in a rifle where all five barrels are by design not zeroed on the same point. It also means single-shot accuracy at range is anyone's guess, since you may not even know which barrel you're firing, much less where that barrel is zeroed.

 

[Rickshaw]

As for using Motars, they are held at company or battalion level. What conversation do they need with "higher ups" other than their own battalion or company CO? They are there to used, why not use them. Same for LMG/GPMGs. Infantry sections are meant to be supported. They do not operate alone on a battlefield.

You're talking about how things would work in theory on a general war battlefield. The actual practice of Afghanistan was that for large periods of the conflict, anything that had the potential to cause civilian casualties needed approval up to brigade HQ at least. That included basically any fragmenting warhead other than 40mm grenades. Far, far from ideal for the infantry, but that's the way it was. And the way it might well be again in a future COIN fight.

That is a change of ROEs. The Australian Army was operating in the same environment and only took artillery out of the mix. Mortars remained at battalion level though.

 

[Rickshaw]

The Australian Army adopted the policy of every digger need to remove the barrel from their weapon to allow the chamber to checked clear, upon clearing the weapon.

At least the barrel is very quickly and easily removed.

Indeed. Just a little fiddly when you're used to the L1a1.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I thought the SLR was OK but if we moved about in the back of a shortie LR, van drivers behind us got in a bit of a tizzy, I suppose gun barrels waving all over the place right under your nose is a guaranteed motion lotion. They should not have been so close in fairness.

 

[ERNEST J]

I am unsure why modern US Army soldiers complain about 5.56x45mm rifles. They appear to have forgotten that they are meant to be part of a combined arms team and that engaging outside the effective engagement range of their rifles is meant to be handled by Grenade Launchers/LMGs/GPMGs/Mortars/Artillery. Oh and trying to engage enemy with an SMG type carbine (a'la M4 with short barrel) is just asking for trouble. They would better, rather than seeking a new calibre to arm their soldiers with an adequate barrel lengthed rifle instead.

You are quite right, they seem to have forgotten this. Initially the M.16 was not meant to be a main battle field rifle as it was the replacement for the M.1 carbine and that was what it was designed to do and as such worked well, in Vietnam where the ranges tended to be close due to near jungle environment it was fab; OK on occasion they lacked the penetration but the M.79 grenade launcher and the M.60 machine gun sort of compensated and some units did have M.14 also. Now the U.S. seem to be heading back to the 7.mm or 280 British that they rejected all those years ago.

 

[TomS]

Now the U.S. seem to be heading back to the 7.mm or 280 British that they rejected all those years ago.

Not really. .280 British is pretty wimpy compared to rounds the US is looking at for Next-Gen Squad Weapon. The US NGSW concepts are mostly based around something like a full-power .308 necked down to 6.8mm and then pushed to exceptionally high pressures or otherwise hot-loaded. Presumably 5.56x45 will stay around for anyone who isn't an infantry soldier.

 

[ERNEST J]

I see your point. That said they will be putting the 5.56 back to where it should have been. I have to admit I did not make clear that the new 6.8 is a much more powerful round. How ever there are some military analysts that are of the view that even the 6.8 is a wrong move on account that it will lead to a heavier weapon when all the accessories are included.

 

[ERNEST J]

I see your point. That said they will be putting the 5.56 back to where it should have been. I have to admit I did not make clear that the new 6.8 is a much more powerful round. How ever there are some military analysts that are of the view that even the 6.8 is a wrong move on account that it will lead to a heavier weapon when all the accessories are included.

 

[Pioneer]

Should the West finally bite the bullet and go for a single design?

I would say it wouldn't happen, not through lack of common sense, but because of the corporate contents of $ derived by a seemingly resurgence of nationalism by many a member of NATO....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[zen]

A thought occurs......

If we move to CT ammunition and a 6.8 bullet....
The using of straight walled cases offers the possibility of differing powder levels. Resulting in differing velocities, effectiveness and recoil.
With the downside that it's easy to put the wrong round in and discover you get the heavy recoil in CQB and the shorter ranged ammo when you have to engage across a valley or up a mountain.
However if you can avoid that ... and get the right ammo in for the occasion, then you don't need to swap rifles.

Potentially the ultimate outcome of this US move maybe the 6.8mm round at lower velocity/recoil than currently intended.

Flipside is, 338 and .50 will do the long-range jobs much better, while various pistol rounds are just as if not more effective up close.

While a squad carrying a weapon like the Carl Gustav or the 40mm UGL compatible missile Pike offer more effective solutions than changing rifle and ammunition. Or indeed modern mortar rounds and a lightweight mortar.
And then there are drones.....

 

[MihoshiK]

I have read this thread with interest. How do we feel about rounds like 0.300 Blackout? Does that calibre have anything to offer here?

Only for specialty applications, not as a general service cartridge. Like, if you want a silenced gun with reasonable ballistics, sure. it's a great cartridge. But if you don't need that and go for the lightweight bullet/higher speed loadings, it's basically 7.63x39, and why would you bother with that?

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

After reading this thread I think it should be mentioned that I think the Brits face the same issue as the US in replacing the M16/M4. They have a rifle that has had pretty much all of its issues sorted in great quantity. For them to take on the expense of replacing the L85A2/A3 they would need something with a significant boost in capability over it to justify the costs.

Same for the US. With the amount of add-on's and large varieties of manufacturers available these days for the AR family you would need a pretty spectacular weapon to justify the replacement expense. Such a rifle has yet to emerge and I doubt it will emerge any time soon.

The cost argument of replacing the standard issue service rifle for an entire army is just too strong when the counter is we have something in good quantity, in stock and it works. Offer a weapon with significant enough improvements and the replacement argument gets stronger.

 

[GARGEAN]

They have a rifle that has had pretty much all of its issues sorted in great quantity.

Not really. Weight still isn't and won't be.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

They have a rifle that has had pretty much all of its issues sorted in great quantity.

Not really. Weight still isn't and won't be.

Weight is always a subject of debate especially the more troops start hanging things off their rifles. Can the L85 be lighter? Certainly. Is that grounds for replacement? It is not unfortunately.

 

[perttime]

I have read this thread with interest. How do we feel about rounds like 0.300 Blackout? Does that calibre have anything to offer here?

As said, it is pretty much equivalent with 7.63x39 at max velocity. Just in a slightly smaller package. A pretty good subsonic (suppressed) round with heavy bullets, though. I've understood that "we" are looking for range and penetration. .300 Blackout doesn't have the velocity for that.

 

[Tony Williams]

Same for the US. With the amount of add-on's and large varieties of manufacturers available these days for the AR family you would need a pretty spectacular weapon to justify the replacement expense. Such a rifle has yet to emerge and I doubt it will emerge any time soon.

The cost argument of replacing the standard issue service rifle for an entire army is just too strong when the counter is we have something in good quantity, in stock and it works. Offer a weapon with significant enough improvements and the replacement argument gets stronger.

The US Army's current thinking is to introduce a very high-powered 6.8 mm round which can punch through military-grade body armour at normal battle ranges. Three different takes on this are currently being evaluated, along with advanced sights. This will be to equip infantry riflemen only - everyone else (the great majority of the Army) will retain the M4 as a kind of PDW.

 

[Foo Fighter]

This is an argument that is living in one dimension. As soon as the weapon changes, so will body armour etc. A constant circular debate which will never have a completely satisfactory conclusion. Find out what you want your troops to combat and go from there. Everything else is just talk.

 

[marauder2048]

The US Army's current thinking is to introduce a very high-powered 6.8 mm round which can punch through military-grade body armour at normal battle ranges

I got the impression that what drove 6.8 over 6.5 was better barrier penetration.

this is an argument that is living in one dimension. As soon as the weapon changes, so will body armour etc. A constant circular debate

The (multi) decadal time lag between the development and widespread use of body armor tech (kevlar, then ceramic etc) suggests that
while the debate might be circular the arc of the circle favoring the projectile is a much greater proportion of the total circumference.

 

[Apophenia]

... The US NGSW concepts are mostly based around something like a full-power .308 necked down to 6.8mm and then pushed to exceptionally high pressures or otherwise hot-loaded...

Out of curiosity, how would such a 6.8x51 round compare with the 130 year old 6.5×55 Swedish?

 

[TomS]

... The US NGSW concepts are mostly based around something like a full-power .308 necked down to 6.8mm and then pushed to exceptionally high pressures or otherwise hot-loaded...

Out of curiosity, how would such a 6.8x51 round compare with the 130 year old 6.5×55 Swedish?

Given what we know of how the Army wants to load them, no comparison at all. The Army is keepng the full NGSW performance restricted. From what little we know, they basically asked for a heavy bullet load with velocity comparable to a light 6.5mm Creedmoor, packed into a gun with a carbine form factor.

The only round we have any firm data on is the commercial .277 SIG Fury, which pushes a 140-grain (9.1-gram) bullet at more than 2970 fps (905 m/s) from a 16-inch (406mm) barrel. The closest comparable 6.5x55 loading is 140 grains at 2615 fps (797 m/s). But that's from a 25.6-inch (650mm) barrel! Cut the barrel down by a third and the velocity of the 6.5mm Swede would plummet. And there's reason to suspect that the Army 6.8x51 SIG loading would be hotter than the Fury. The Fury had to be SAAMI-approved and still has remarkably high chamber pressures of 65,000 psi (80,000 psi proof), hence the hybrid brass-steel case. The Army load's pressure probably exceeds what SAAMI would approve commercially by 20% or more so it should be even faster. And it's designed for a rifle with a 13-inch barrel and a honking big suppressor can/muzzle brake on it.

The GD rifle is a bullpup so they can get a longer barrel and achieve similar performance without quite as much pressure from a neckless polymer case. And the Textron gun uses case telescoped ammo with a polymer case as well.

 

[marauder2048]

Out of curiosity, how would such a 6.8x51 round compare with the 130 year old 6.5×55 Swedish?

The 6.5x55 Swedish is, unsurprisingly, a dog aerodynamically.

 

[perttime]

Out of curiosity, how would such a 6.8x51 round compare with the 130 year old 6.5×55 Swedish?

The 6.5x55 Swedish is, unsurprisingly, a dog aerodynamically.

There's a couple of different specs for 6.5x55. One is safe for old guns, as originally introduced, another is for modern rifles and about equal with 6.5 Creedmoor.

 

[marauder2048]

Out of curiosity, how would such a 6.8x51 round compare with the 130 year old 6.5×55 Swedish?

The 6.5x55 Swedish is, unsurprisingly, a dog aerodynamically.

There's a couple of different specs for 6.5x55. One is safe for old guns, as originally introduced, another is for modern rifles and about equal with 6.5 Creedmoor.

The one spec for the 130 year old variant.

 

[TomS]

The one spec for the 130 year old variant.

The spec I quoted is for one of the new RWS 6.5x55 loadings with a modern spitzer boat-tailed bullet. By normal standards, it's quite good, but the NGSW rounds are loaded like wildcats, with very fast-burning propellants.

 

[GARGEAN]

Need to go with 6x49...

 

[marauder2048]

The one spec for the 130 year old variant.

The spec I quoted is for one of the new RWS 6.5x55 loadings with a modern spitzer boat-tailed bullet. By normal standards, it's quite good, but the NGSW rounds are loaded like wildcats, with very fast-burning propellants.

Perf-wise, that one looks like one of the scaled M193 designs I've seen so still meh.
But I take you point on pressures; the CT rounds were trying to achieve 75,000 - 100,000 psi.

 

[TomS]

The one spec for the 130 year old variant.

The spec I quoted is for one of the new RWS 6.5x55 loadings with a modern spitzer boat-tailed bullet. By normal standards, it's quite good, but the NGSW rounds are loaded like wildcats, with very fast-burning propellants.

Perf-wise, that one looks like one of the scaled M193 designs I've seen so still meh.
But I take you point on pressures; the CT rounds were trying to achieve 75,000 - 100,000 psi.

TruVelocity says they can handle 100,000 psi in their neckless hybrid composite case (for the GD/Beretta rifle) but they probably don't need to since their bullpup rifle has something like an 18-20 inch barrel. The Textron CTA round probably needs those pressures since it too has a short barrel.

I think all of these are chasing an impossible objective, but the tech is interesting. Be curious to see what you could achieve with the tech in something more like an M-4 package.

 

[Tony Williams]

Be curious to see what you could achieve with the tech in something more like an M-4 package.

That's possible. There's a guy who posts on my forum who is very into detailed design studies of military rifles and ammunition. His latest proposal is based on the 6.5 x 38 Grendel round (which is designed to fit in an M4 with a new barrel and magazines). Stoked up to 75,000 psi, it would deliver 2,300 J muzzle energy from a 14.5 inch barrel (in old money, that's a low-drag 100 grain bullet at 2,770 fps). That compares with 1,700 J for a 5.56 mm. Various changes would be required: the Grendel case is relatively weak and cannot take such high pressures, so a stronger (mostly polymer) case would need to be developed, plus a new bolt, barrel, barrel extension, carrier and magazine.

I think that could make a good general-purpose cartridge in a compact package. With an LMG fitted with a longer barrel, it would provide better long-range ballistics than the 7.62 x 51.

 

[Rickshaw]

... The US NGSW concepts are mostly based around something like a full-power .308 necked down to 6.8mm and then pushed to exceptionally high pressures or otherwise hot-loaded...

Out of curiosity, how would such a 6.8x51 round compare with the 130 year old 6.5×55 Swedish?

Given what we know of how the Army wants to load them, no comparison at all. The Army is keepng the full NGSW performance restricted. From what little we know, they basically asked for a heavy bullet load with velocity comparable to a light 6.5mm Creedmoor, packed into a gun with a carbine form factor.

The only round we have any firm data on is the commercial .277 SIG Fury, which pushes a 140-grain (9.1-gram) bullet at more than 2970 fps (905 m/s) from a 16-inch (406mm) barrel. The closest comparable 6.5x55 loading is 140 grains at 2615 fps (797 m/s). But that's from a 25.6-inch (650mm) barrel! Cut the barrel down by a third and the velocity of the 6.5mm Swede would plummet. And there's reason to suspect that the Army 6.8x51 SIG loading would be hotter than the Fury. The Fury had to be SAAMI-approved and still has remarkably high chamber pressures of 65,000 psi (80,000 psi proof), hence the hybrid brass-steel case. The Army load's pressure probably exceeds what SAAMI would approve commercially by 20% or more so it should be even faster. And it's designed for a rifle with a 13-inch barrel and a honking big suppressor can/muzzle brake on it.

The GD rifle is a bullpup so they can get a longer barrel and achieve similar performance without quite as much pressure from a neckless polymer case. And the Textron gun uses case telescoped ammo with a polymer case as well.

I think the clue here is the barrel length. The US Army wants something that is, with present ballistics impossible - a short gun with superb accuracy, particularly as long as they refuse to go with a bullpup design. Bullpup designs offer longer barrels in a short form factor. As long as the US Army won't look seriously at them, they are stuck with a POS gun like the M4/M16.

 

[Pioneer]

I am unsure why modern US Army soldiers complain about 5.56x45mm rifles. They appear to have forgotten that they are meant to be part of a combined arms team and that engaging outside the effective engagement range of their rifles is meant to be handled by Grenade Launchers/LMGs/GPMGs/Mortars/Artillery. Oh and trying to engage enemy with an SMG type carbine (a'la M4 with short barrel) is just asking for trouble. They would better, rather than seeking a new calibre to arm their soldiers with an adequate barrel lengthed rifle instead.

If I may, from personal perspective...
The 5.56 x 45 round is underpowered.
As emphasised and again relearnt in Afghanistan/Iraq, the 5.56mm round isn't good at punching through the most remedial cover, be it timber, masonry or car bodies.
I'm glad you recognise the seeming obsession of every soldier in U.S. service carrying/employing short barreled M4's Rickshaw, because it has me stuffed.
I personally witnessed and experienced the transition from 7.62mm to 5.56mm (both rifle and machine gun)[Note: We stuck with the 5.56mm for rifles and 7.62mm for GPMG for quite a while, then fashion and trend got the better of those in power, lossing the M60 to the F89 (FN Minimi) but many, if not most of us Diggers inherently knew and saw the short coming of the 5.56mm round and weapons very quickly. Then with the reiteration of only what combat operations (East Timor) it became apparent that the 5.56mm wasn't all it was cracked up to be in both teaching out and touching somebody, and punching through cover. We gladly (and ironically) began getting 7.62mm MAG-58 GPMG's reintroduced into the Rifle Section's - yes it was heavier and unwieldy compare to the F89, but once you manned up again, configured a sling arrangement (and devised non-standard foregrip attachment), the MAG-58 could deliver a harder hitting, longer reaching 7.62mm rounds on target, for more sustainable and more reliably, each and every time. A couple of years ago, the Army started evaluating the Maximi the 7.62mm derivative of the F89 Minimi. Alas, I only got to carry it out bush and fire it a couple of times before I got out, but one thing is clear the 7.62mm or even the 6.8mm for that matter is harder hitting = more effective than the 5.56mm, regardless of differences in weight or the number of rounds carried by a Digger IMO.



Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rickshaw]

I am unsure why modern US Army soldiers complain about 5.56x45mm rifles. They appear to have forgotten that they are meant to be part of a combined arms team and that engaging outside the effective engagement range of their rifles is meant to be handled by Grenade Launchers/LMGs/GPMGs/Mortars/Artillery. Oh and trying to engage enemy with an SMG type carbine (a'la M4 with short barrel) is just asking for trouble. They would better, rather than seeking a new calibre to arm their soldiers with an adequate barrel lengthed rifle instead.

If I may, from personal perspective...
The 5.56 x 45 round is underpowered.
As emphasised and again relearnt in Afghanistan/Iraq, the 5.56mm round isn't good at punching through the most remedial cover, be it timber, masonry or car bodies.
I'm glad you recognise the seeming obsession of every soldier in U.S. service carrying/employing short barreled M4's Rickshaw, because it has me stuffed.
I personally witnessed and experienced the transition from 7.62mm to 5.56mm (both rifle and machine gun)[Note: We stuck with the 5.56mm for rifles and 7.62mm for GPMG for quite a while, then fashion and trend got the better of those in power, lossing the M60 to the F89 (FN Minimi) but many, if not most of us Diggers inherently knew and saw the short coming of the 5.56mm round and weapons very quickly. Then with the reiteration of only what combat operations (East Timor) it became apparent that the 5.56mm wasn't all it was cracked up to be in both teaching out and touching somebody, and punching through cover. We gladly (and ironically) began getting 7.62mm MAG-58 GPMG's reintroduced into the Rifle Section's - yes it was heavier and unwieldy compare to the F89, but once you manned up again, configured a sling arrangement (and devised non-standard foregrip attachment), the MAG-58 could deliver a harder hitting, longer reaching 7.62mm rounds on target, for more sustainable and more reliably, each and every time. A couple of years ago, the Army started evaluating the Maximi the 7.62mm derivative of the F89 Minimi. Alas, I only got to carry it out bush and fire it a couple of times before I got out, but one thing is clear the 7.62mm or even the 6.8mm for that matter is harder hitting = more effective than the 5.56mm, regardless of differences in weight or the number of rounds carried by a Digger IMO.



Regards
Pioneer

I was also there during the change over from 7.62x51mm to 5.56x45mm as well. The problem with 7.62x51mm was weight. The round was heavy and it was excessively powerful. 5.56x45mm was light enough and it was meant to be used as part of a combined arms response to anything the enemy might throw at you. In Afghanistan there were far fewer complaints from diggers that they couldn't "reach out and teach them a lesson" 'cause we used to rely on GPMGs and SFMGs and mortars, as well as rifles. The US Army appears to rely purely on rifles for some reason. I also think the difference is the length of barrel on an F88 versus a barrel on a M4.

 

[marauder2048]

In Afghanistan there were far fewer complaints from diggers that they couldn't "reach out and teach them a lesson"

Except the AR-based DMR was adopted by the British Army for precisely this reason.
And the Australian Army. Both at pretty much the same time.

 

[Rickshaw]

In Afghanistan there were far fewer complaints from diggers that they couldn't "reach out and teach them a lesson"

Except the AR-based DMR was adopted by the British Army for precisely this reason.
And the Australian Army. Both at pretty much the same time.

And how useful was it? It simply forms another rung in the combined arms ladder. The Australian Army adopted an "enhanced" F88 in 5.56x45mm calibre - exactly the same rifle as is normally issued except it has an enhanced scope on it - one per section of infantry...

 

[Fluff]

Doesn't this sound as if they are asking for a rifle suitable for Afghanistan? But not quite, as it still needs to be short - when for long range engagement you need to go to a longer barrel. Seems a contradictory wish list. I assume these suggested rounds will in total weigh more, especially when in the matching MG? Presumably offset by having a robot carrying some of the squad's kit. Which logically takes us to mounting said MG on the robot vehicle? Which of course is a no go, as people prefer to be shot by a human.....

 

[marauder2048]

In Afghanistan there were far fewer complaints from diggers that they couldn't "reach out and teach them a lesson"

Except the AR-based DMR was adopted by the British Army for precisely this reason.
And the Australian Army. Both at pretty much the same time.

And how useful was it? It simply forms another rung in the combined arms ladder. The Australian Army adopted an "enhanced" F88 in 5.56x45mm calibre - exactly the same rifle as is normally issued except it has an enhanced scope on it - one per section of infantry...

So your claim that the Australian army puts emphasis on "combined arms" rather than rifles is clearly buttressed by
the introduction of two new, expensive rifle types into the mix as result of combat experience in Afghanistan?

The Australian purchased DMRs replaced the M14 EBRs the Australians borrowed from the US during a
period where the US was introducing guided mortars into Afghanistan.

 

[TomS]

Doesn't this sound as if they are asking for a rifle suitable for Afghanistan? But not quite, as it still needs to be short - when for long range engagement you need to go to a longer barrel. Seems a contradictory wish list. I assume these suggested rounds will in total weigh more, especially when in the matching MG? Presumably offset by having a robot carrying some of the squad's kit. Which logically takes us to mounting said MG on the robot vehicle? Which of course is a no go, as people prefer to be shot by a human.....

They're trying to vreate a gun for all seasons. Relaly long barrels are a problem getting into and out of a vehicle (whether it's a true IFV/APC or an armored truck like JLTV ). And they want a round that can defeat heavy body armor (which is probably futile given the pace of body armor development). And they want ordinary infantry soldiers to engage targets at two or three times the usually accepted figure (becuase Afghanisatan ROE wouldn't let them dump HE on distant and unobserved targets).

All this rather than developing a proper combined arms response at the infantry platoon/company level.

 

[Rickshaw]

In Afghanistan there were far fewer complaints from diggers that they couldn't "reach out and teach them a lesson"

Except the AR-based DMR was adopted by the British Army for precisely this reason.
And the Australian Army. Both at pretty much the same time.

And how useful was it? It simply forms another rung in the combined arms ladder. The Australian Army adopted an "enhanced" F88 in 5.56x45mm calibre - exactly the same rifle as is normally issued except it has an enhanced scope on it - one per section of infantry...

So your claim that the Australian army puts emphasis on "combined arms" rather than rifles is clearly buttressed by
the introduction of two new, expensive rifle types into the mix as result of combat experience in Afghanistan?

The Australian purchased DMRs replaced the M14 EBRs the Australians borrowed from the US during a
period where the US was introducing guided mortars into Afghanistan.

Again, we discussing primarily special forces. What the SASR and Commandos do is their affair, not what the rest of the Australian Army does. The Australian Army might be more hidebound but it is hidebound with a reason.

 

[marauder2048]

Again, we discussing primarily special forces.

Except the HK417 seems to have gone as much to the regular army as anyone else.

That practically all NATO and Allied armies got short barreled 7.62 DMR religion over the last decade
is not a coincidence; NGSW-R is essentially trying to get 7.62 DMR performance out of lighter weight
ammo in a slightly smaller form factor.

 

[Rickshaw]

Again, we discussing primarily special forces.

Except the HK417 seems to have gone as much to the regular army as anyone else.

That practically all NATO and Allied armies got short barreled 7.62 DMR religion over the last decade
is not a coincidence; NGSW-R is essentially trying to get 7.62 DMR performance out of lighter weight
ammo in a slightly smaller form factor.

According to wikipedia:

Australian Army acquired 16″ 'Recce' variants paired with 6× ACOG for a designated marksman solution for use in Afghanistan and afterwards

A "marksman solution" is intended to supplement, not replace the main service rifle. Again, this is for special forces - SASR and Commando Regt., not for the RAR. The SASR and Commando Regt. have different rules to how they operate and how they procure weapons. The SASR and Commando Regt. use M4 rifles, not F88 ones. There is a world of difference between the capabilities of the two rifles. The F88 has a standard 20 inch barrel, whereas the M4 has only at it's longest, an 18 inch one and quite often only a 14 inch one.

 

[Tony Williams]

The New Zealand Army has changed its small arms over the past few years. They used to have the 5.56mm Steyr AUG rifle and the 5.56mm Minimi LMG. They have replaced the LMG with the 7.62mm Minimi, bought a DMW (Designated Marksman Weapon) to equip the infantry sections with a long-range precision capability (the 7.62mm rifle is pretty much the same as the British Army's LMT Sharpshooter, except with a 20" rather than 16" barrel and with selective fire) and replaced the rest of the AUGs with a 5.56mm LMT carbine which is a baby brother to the DMW, so shares the same controls and handling. They also adopted the MK262 5.56mm ammunition, which fires a heavier bullet than the NATO loadings for an improved long-range performance. Overall, quite a substantial increase in long-range effectiveness.