• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

ADF signs up for next generation of [small arms] weapons

dimsum

Army.ca Myth
Mentor
Reaction score
14,753
Points
1,280
The Aussies are ditching the Browning Hi-Power Mk 3 for the Sig Sauer M320.

Cue jokes about buying used Brownings

New weapons systems to be acquired include:
  • Australian manufacturer ZU Bladeworx’s Double-Edged Fighting Knife - selected as the basis of the ADF’s new Hand-to-Hand Fighting System. The black, double-edged fighting knife has a 100mm blade, is machined from a solid billet of A2 steel and features a non-slip handle and retention ring.
  • The SIG Sauer P320 XCarry Pro - selected as the platform for the Sidearm Weapon System, which will replace the venerable Browning Mk3 pistol. It will be complemented with reflex sights, and a white light illuminator.
  • The Benelli M3A1 - selected as the platform for the Combat Shotgun System. Operable in semi-automatic or pump-action mode, it is complemented with a red dot sight and white light illuminator.
  • The SIG Sauer MCX, in .300 Blackout calibre - selected as the platform for the Personal Defence Weapon System, to provide dismounted combatants with a light, modular, and compact weapon system that can be rapidly optimised for specialised roles.
  • The Accuracy International AX-SR - selected as the platform for the Long Range Sniper Capability. It will be introduced into ADF service as a multi-calibre system capable of delivering in .338 Lapua Magnum, .300 Norma Magnum and 7.62mm NATO calibres.
  • The Sniper Surveillance Capability – selected to provide ADF snipers with a day and night capability utilising the Safran JIM Compact multispectral surveillance device and Steiner laser range-finding binoculars.
  • The M107A1 rifle, manufactured by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Incorporated, - selected as the platform for the Anti-Material Sniper Capability. The M107A1 is a lighter, modernised and suppressed derivative of the in-service weapon, and is complemented with precision optics, night vision, and ranger-finding devices.

 
A PDW in .300 is an interesting move I didn't see coming, would actually love if the CAF did similar for CS and CSS
 
I have never understood the appeal of .300 blackout, basically a lower pressure 7.62x39, which is a round I wouldn't consider effective for general usage in the modern era due to body armour. Its only benefit is the ability to suppress it easier, however that I would consider to be of questionable effectiveness as if a CSS troop is shooting the enemy already knows where you are. You also need to be able to kill that enemy and if they are wearing body armour good luck with that round.
 
And the CAF is STILL kicking the 9mm can down the road....
Obviously that's because we're getting phasers next

 
I have never understood the appeal of .300 blackout, basically a lower pressure 7.62x39, which is a round I wouldn't consider effective for general usage in the modern era due to body armour. Its only benefit is the ability to suppress it easier, however that I would consider to be of questionable effectiveness as if a CSS troop is shooting the enemy already knows where you are. You also need to be able to kill that enemy and if they are wearing body armour good luck with that round.
I was curious about that. Doesn't look like it's to replace the F88 Austeyr as their primary service rifle.

Australia looks to have a comprehensive weapons replacement project underway, with three tranches of kit being acquired over the next several FYs. The Sig MCX in .300 will be their 'personal defence weapon'... Given the optimization of that system for suppressed use, I'm curious whether this is also being looked at for SOF type work; or if, alternatively, they're simply looking at moving more widely to suppressed small arms. But I agree with @Eaglelord17 that it's an odd choice for a green army small arm.

Part of Tranche 2 from FY 24/25 - 26/27 involves the 'Close Combatant Assault Rifle', so I guess a replacement for Austeyr is on the horizon, just not decided on yet.

@KevinB , I feel like you'll have some insight?

 
I haven’t been to Oz in a while. So I am honestly not sure I am current with their plan.

Originally PDW was going to be for pretty much all non Infantry forces. The idea of a small 200m capable weapon for that role makes a lot of sense. They have been planning on 100% suppressed weapons for a while, and I suspect this is simply an ongoing part.
 
I haven’t been to Oz in a while. So I am honestly not sure I am current with their plan.

Originally PDW was going to be for pretty much all non Infantry forces. The idea of a small 200m capable weapon for that role makes a lot of sense. They have been planning on 100% suppressed weapons for a while, and I suspect this is simply an ongoing part.
Kev. Is it not weird to have the blackout existing in the same ecosystem as the 5.56? Like…we have enough problems with cross contamination on a very small scale- I can’t imagine giving large swathes of people side by side the two.
 
Kev. Is it not weird to have the blackout existing in the same ecosystem as the 5.56? Like…we have enough problems with cross contamination on a very small scale- I can’t imagine giving large swathes of people side by side the two.
I don’t expect Aus to retain 5.56mm with the switch to .300.
If I had to take a guess PDW will expand into the Infantry and a DMR and LMG in 6.5 or 6.8 BSA will get adopted in a 2x 2x / squad/section (or less likely 7.62mm NATO).

The cross contamination issue is catastrophic…
 
The cross contamination issue is catastrophic…

Yup. I’ve seen range and training practices change in my organization due to both 5.56 and .300BLK existing in our system, and I’ve seen the photos showing why. Having two ammunition types that are visually similar to the dumbest third of troops is a problem when one can be loaded and chambered into the other, and blow it up when fired…
 
Yup. I’ve seen range and training practices change in my organization due to both 5.56 and .300BLK existing in our system, and I’ve seen the photos showing why. Having two ammunition types that are visually similar to the dumbest third of troops is a problem when one can be loaded and chambered into the other, and blow it up when fired…
It also occurs at the T1 level.
Blown up Hk416’s and SR16’s and a few other platforms I’ve seen a bunch of…
 
I don’t expect Aus to retain 5.56mm with the switch to .300.
If I had to take a guess PDW will expand into the Infantry and a DMR and LMG in 6.5 or 6.8 BSA will get adopted in a 2x 2x / squad/section (or less likely 7.62mm NATO).

The cross contamination issue is catastrophic…
I recall reading somewhere(OS), Kev, that some USSOCOM units were considering to switching to 6.8 vs 5.56 because 5.56 wasn't working well enough.
 
I recall reading somewhere(OS), Kev, that some USSOCOM units were considering to switching to 6.8 vs 5.56 because 5.56 wasn't working well enough.
There was a lot of chatter early on.
6.8x43 SPC was championed as that. It really fell off the charts as bolt life and range where issues as well as magazine reliability.

Now we have down here ignored all AAR’s but a few outliers from Afghanistan and trying to push 6.8x51 with Sig’s NGSW and NGAR.
To give a soldier a 1200m weapon, and also try to sell it as overmatch on our enemies.

6.5 Creedmore offers 96% of what 6.8 BSA (Big Stupid Army) wants but is in COTS and MOTS systems. But they still require a 7.62 NATO sized platform.
 
There was a lot of chatter early on.
6.8x43 SPC was championed as that. It really fell off the charts as bolt life and range where issues as well as magazine reliability.

Now we have down here ignored all AAR’s but a few outliers from Afghanistan and trying to push 6.8x51 with Sig’s NGSW and NGAR.
To give a soldier a 1200m weapon, and also try to sell it as overmatch on our enemies.

6.5 Creedmore offers 96% of what 6.8 BSA (Big Stupid Army) wants but is in COTS and MOTS systems. But they still require a 7.62 NATO sized platform.
Yup. Got it. But you have continually asserted that we don't need 1200m weapons. Is the BSA really that stupid?
 
Yup. Got it. But you have continually asserted that we don't need 1200m weapons. Is the BSA really that stupid?
I don’t see a point in it.
I’ve been wrong before - but to me it flies in the fact of reality.
 
Back
Top