Army to use 'Dirty Harry' bullet against the Taliban

British troops are to be issued with a new 'super-bullet' to fight the Taliban as their current ammunition does not have the punch to kill the enemy at long range.

The high-performance round will be fired from standard-issue SA80 assault rifles. Nicknamed the 'Dirty Harry round' after the powerful bullets used by Clint Eastwood in the 1971 movie, it is expected to be on the front line in Afghanistan by 2011.

Its development by UK defence firms BAE Systems and QinetiQ follows Army concern in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, last year that the standard 5.56mm SA80 round was failing to hit its target at distances of more than 400 yards.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

So I posted this thread to clear up a few questions I have. I do not wish to discuss the legality of this war that's why I have posted in the weaponry section, as opposed to the breaking news forum. Also disregard the term Dirty Harry bullet, it just seems stupid, but hey it's the Daily Mail afterall.

The questions I pose may seem very naive but I have never found adequate answers elsewhere so I ask for the help of more experienced ATS members.

First of all if coalition forces are being outgunned by the Taliban, who's standard issue assault rifle is the AK-47, then why are coalition not trained and equipped with the same weapons?

Secondly why is it only now that the government has decided to use this improved ammunition? I say now, of course the article clearly states the ammunition will not be in use until 2011.

Lastly are the US and other forces fightning in Afghanistan being equipped with these new rounds too? Or do they already have small arms munitions to match the Taliban? As it seems illogical for the UK to be the only forces using the 'new' ammunition.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Big Raging Loner]
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18/8/2010 by ArMaP]

I hate how it's just technology used to kill people, but damn... it's so cool! Hate it or love it, we've got the most advanced military technology in the world and nobody even comes close.

I bet with enough funding, a system could be designed that takes real-time scans of a given area of ground combat, with fast enough resolve time to detect the trajectory and thus origin of enemy fire. If it worked well enough you could determine the precise location of snipers. I bet it's within our current technological capability.

I know that's almost completely off-topic but I had to write it down somewhere before I forget it.

edit to add - I can't answer the questions you pose, but I would love to see the answers to them as well.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Son of Will]

i thought the sa80 was being replaced soon anyways.
more money wasted on death i say.
why not spend on armour plating.

i'm working on the stab round-basically a small guided munition that
enters the body- backs up -and re-enters the body over and over..
until they are just a sack of meat. and i hope this will finally satisfy
the wargasm set,
the war pornographers that get excited about
turning a human being into exploding parts-
for their sick pleasure.

reply to post by Son of Will


That already exists to some extent. There are acoustic gunshot detection systems that can indicate the direction a shot came from. There is an armoured vehicle turret system that already has this incorporated and will slave the vehicle sight to the predicted direction the shot came from.

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner

Secondly why is it only now that the government has decided to use this improved ammunition? I say now, of course the article clearly states the ammunition will not be in use until 2011.

Because we’re talking about the U.K were the government has less concern for its soldiers than your average dictatorship. In a dictatorship you control the news agenda, so the death of a soldier is pure loss. But in the U.K private corporations control the news agenda, and so the death of every soldier is another side-track from (other) major events.

Of course Labour is promising to provide the troops with everything they need (just like they did when in opposition). And Tories are doing the same thing. Both parties are united promising the troops everything, yet delivering them much less than their personal safety deserves.

Well that will certainly reduce the cost of bumping of Football heros like Pat Tillman by half.
I mean having to wound a guy, then walk up and give it to him, triple tap to the head, is a lot of work. It would be so nice to just be able to shoot them from the couch.
and of course no ballistic evidence....

Just my two cents..

Corporate arms dealers and their government reps would never stand for equipping troops with AK47s, they're too simple, reliable, and easy to manufacture to yield big profits. Besides the 7.62x39 kicks more than the 5.56 and the AK47 is "heavy" to carry. Never mind that the AK is going to put a 1/3 larger hole in the target with proportionately larger bullet mass, while the 5.56 basically has velocity going for it.

As for the "new ammo" taking until 2011 to be deployed is probably due to exhorbitant corporate price gouging and it would appear "too easy" to justify the cost if a solution could be delivered in a matter of days/weeks.

US and UK troops don't use the same ammunition, common calibers perhaps, but each branch of the US uses different weapons systems and special ammunitions - due to the number of American and world-wide arms manufacturers that must be supported by our tax dollar. War has always been an excellent economic stilumus package.

gj

what a load of BS.

they are just going from the M855 round to the M855A1 green round
www.defensereview.com... 5-ball-ammo-gets-an-upgrade/

The bullet of this new round contains no lead its all copper and steel penetrator.

www.thehighroad.org...

Okay. Right. So it's not .44 Magnum or even an Mag round full stop.

Now, will some kind gentleman explain just what the hell this greening is?

I have over 40 years experience of small arms and was current on MMG/HMG up to the old M2, but in all my years, I have never heard of 'greening'!

What is it and what is it supposed to do?

Sorry - I forgot to add my two-penneth about the AK.

Let's get one thing straight, shall we? The AK 47 is no good at long range shooting, especially at any range over 300 metres unless it is one of the newer selective fire weapons. Other than that, on full auto, all the AK does is convert live rounds to empty cases - 1st round on target, the rest shooting empty air.

The freedom fighters/terrorists/guerillas that use the AK throughout the world use the time tested hold the weapon above head height, preferrably over a wall or window sill, press the trigger and hold it until the mag is empty method of shooting.

Our troops use the Marksmanship Principles to their fullest extent and usually hit what they are shooting at, up to and including 500/600 metres using optical sights.

The Jundies aren't up to this and never will be. Of course there are good shots amongst them, but I bet they're the ones with sniper or semi-automatic weapons.

[edit on 03/07/10 by fritz]

I was trained to use the good old SLR 7.62. Okay, it was large and weighed in at over 9lbs without ammo, but it had the range and the stopping power. With scopes, I was engaging the targets on the range at 800 yards. I loved that weapon and was very sad to see it go.

[edit on 16/8/2010 by TheLoneArcher]

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Of course Labour is promising to provide the troops with everything they need (just like they did when in opposition). And Tories are doing the same thing. Both parties are united promising the troops everything, yet delivering them much less than their personal safety deserves.

Lol, I think you got that a little wrong, Labour is now the opposition and the Tories and the Lib Dems form a coalition government and as such are in power (shared power).

I think it was in the news oh like constantly for months

reply to post by Now_Then[/url]

Well yes they are! But one thing that will go a very long way, is the apparent honesty of the LibCons.

They actually tell it how it is and do not tell friggin great lies. (Well, not yet anyway!)

Under the LibCons, we will get to see the true state of affairs, especially with the military and hopefully, we will no longer be the warmongering American lapdog!

Thanks for the replies folks have all the answers I need

So it seems the general consensus is that the AK although incredibly reliable, and battle tested to say the least, is not adequate for engaging medium to long range targets.

I think that considering full automatic is only ever going to be used as cover fire, then why not equip the average grunt with the AK-47, then deploy more soldiers with long range rifles to pick off targets? Probably need someone more experienced to answer this too. Just seems like a good balance of both would be beneficial.

The second question, another one we can all agree on. The UK government has asked a lot of it's soldiers, but not provided them with the means to carry out these demands. Lets face it from armour to helicopters the British forces have been severely unequipped and it makes me think what is the real agenda here? Surely they want to win...

Lastly;

US and UK troops don't use the same ammunition, common calibers perhaps, but each branch of the US uses different weapons systems and special ammunitions - due to the number of American and world-wide arms manufacturers that must be supported by our tax dollar. War has always been an excellent economic stilumus package.

It seems to me it would make a lot of sense to have a standardised weapon throughout the coalition forces. After all they are most likely always going to be engaged in the same conflict at the same time

There is probably some underlying issue with commitments to suppliers etc that are the main reason behind this. But even the Australian Army and the British use completely different weapons... Seems illogical to me.

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner
then why not equip the average grunt with the AK-47, then deploy more soldiers with long range rifles to pick off targets?

That's not a great idea, the guys on the ground can tell their own fire from the AK's really easily... If everyone is firing AK's you can bet in the chaos and communication problems a few more of our boys will get taken out by their own side, friendly fire is always going to be a factor in battles for the foreseeable, best to minimise that risk where ever possible.

Originally posted by fritz

I have over 40 years experience of small arms and was current on MMG/HMG up to the old M2, but in all my years, I have never heard of 'greening'!

What is it and what is it supposed to do?

[edit on 03/07/10 by fritz]

Green military ammo is ammo that does not contain lead(or DU).

For years the green/environmental movement has complained about all the toxic military training ranges around the US leaching lead into the environment.
They have even called military ranges superfund site because of the lead.

So now the military has gone to a green non lead ammo.

The AK certainly was the best assault rifle in the world for a long while but advances in technology made other guns better for professional armies.

The reasons are fairly simple: The AK is fairly heavy, it's bullet is not the most accurate nor the most efficient, it doesn't have as many possibilities for customization and with that i mean attaching stuff like grenade launchers and various other parts.

What a professional army wants against guerrillas is basically focusing on their own advantages which are training and superior equipment(even only because they are better maintained) and with them negating the advantages of the enemies. So this means that if you fight the taliban in Afghani mountains you want to engage them from a as large range as possible and try to outtactic the enemy(which will usually happen in a straight firefight).

A gun like the SA80(if it works properly) is better suited for this because it is a very accurate rifle, it is not heavy and its much more versatile. The drawbacks of this gun however are lower reliability(although not as bad as it used to be) and it doesn't fire a bullet thats very powerful.

This new bullet will most likely allow them to close the gap in terms of bullet power and maybe also improve long range ballistics.(accuracy) This is more effective than developing new armour because your armour is your last line of defense while your rifle is basically your first line of defense. That said they also constantly develop new body armour infact body armour development has gone a lot faster than the development of new weapons.

also keep in mind that always the center of a squad's firepower will be their machineguns.

reply to post by ANNED


Thank you Anned for that simple explanation.

So I suppose its a bit like "it's okay to stick somebody with a bayonet or knife, provided its not rusty!"

And there's me thinking this round was a cool Magnum type bullet projectile thingy. Just joking.

I guess without the lead core, you ain't gonna die from lead poisoning!

why not just give 2 or 3 guys in squad hk417s chambered for 7.62 nato and properly fitted with good optics should go along way to hitting longer ranged targets.

reply to post by proteus33[/url]

Couldn't agree more!

THAT is what I thought the newish 7.62 milly rifle was supposed to do for we Brits.

Paddy, you there to shed some light on this matter?