SA80, is it STILL a duffer?

[David Mckenzie]

The AuSteyr is far from perfect either.New Zealand adopted them back in '86 as a joint ANZAC project but locally manufactured under licence .Subcontractor quality control wasn't up to Austrian standard and the weapons were not initially popular.Certainly, the group members prefer the Mi6A2/M4 series.
I have seen very good shooting by Brits with L85's ,probably the earlier A1s.and the sling and sight were excellent .I would say the best weapons available right now would have to be the Kampfschwimmers' G11 with its superb closed operation and prepacked mags,and it's retro sibling the G36-which is just about indestructible.

[Sani]

The reason why we ditshced the SLR, was because 5.56mm ammo is easier to carry therefore being able to carry more ammo into battle.

However 5.56 lacks the punch of a 7.62 round, problem is its a catch twenty-two, you go into battle with more 5.56 but waist half of it trying to keep your opponnent on the ground. You hit someone with a 7.62 and they tend not to get up again. You also have to bare in mind that not everyone in the British forces is a crack shot such as yourself....therefore hitting a target at 600-800 metres with 5.56 is a task, even worse is that you will probably have to hit the target again at that range because the first round wasnt effective.
You ask most people who have served with both the SLR and SA80 and they will more often than not, tell you they prefer the SLR.

The LSW is not crap, we needed a weapon that could put a sustained amount of fire down hence why operational forces now use the "LMG" as it is now called by British Forces, not the Minimi or M249, they are slightly different from our version. The LSW has a longer barrel, so can be used to put interval shots down on the enemy to keep him pinned at a longer distance than the rifles capability while the LMG has less accuracy, we always need the LSW.

The LSW is an obsolite weapon, more often than not you are firring at ranges under 600m, the thing is more like a sniper rifle than an MG and doesnt have the spread pattern that weapons such as the LMG/M249/FN Minimi use to their advantage in battle (not on the range). Having only ever used an LSW on a sat range, I have to say (acknowledging that a sat range is not real life) I loved its accuracy but hate it as a support weapon, you have to keep picking the thing up and shoving it in the direction you want to fire because its too bloody awkward to lean with it, which is where weapons like the GPMG and LMG are better suited.

[petermac]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. I always had the feeling that the original SA80 was issued before all its problems were resolved but it does seem to have taken an awful long time and cost a huge amount of money to put the thing to rights.

Peter

[Rikster]

Never had any serious problems with L85 or L86 (Thats the SS80 and LSW)
and yes I did prefer the SLR, but I think more from nostalgia, as it was my "first"
(not counting the .303 from my Cadet day)

cheers, Rik

[Frogprince]

The M16 had its own issues when first introduced, although with the exception of the chromed barrel for use in tropical climates most were not due to any faults in the weapon itself but to accommodate changes in the ammunition by the Army. With all of the money spent on the SA80, does anyone know what specific changes were made to the original design to finally get it to work? FP

[gew98]

Here's the poop on the Isreali Galil :

It has been seconded to armored units, and the balance sold off. Isreal sold oodles of them to south american governments and anyone welse that would pony up the $$.
The Galil is based on the major assemblies of the AKM, hence it's main detractor. That is it is not up to accuracy standards as the M16A1 & A2 are.Cost is the second reason.The US has supplied small arms to Isreal at cost -cheaper than they could produce Galils.The Isrealis have supplied the US Gov't with small arms ammunition at times , for example during the phase out of the M1911A1 pistol all the 45 ammo I got issued for the pistol and M3 grease guns was isreali manufactured as it was supplied to offset some of their debt to the US govt.
As for the M16 family - yes it was mucho hated by the old salts 'running things' back in the late 1950's and into the 1960's. The Armalite was originally made with an anodized chamber ( chromed ) and a chromed bolt and carrier to offset corrosion.
When the US military establishment was force fed the M16 it was "cheapened down" to make it more palletable. That is the chromed bore and bolt assembly was omitted - except by those procured by the Airforce as they demanded and got the chromed features.
Second major bugbear was the major suppliers of the first millions of 5,56 ball ammunition srewed the pooch for money on how they substituted a surplus too slow burning powder they had on h and in quantity which when coupled wiht the characteristics of the 5,56 case caused inordinate amounts of fouling. Pu tthe two together and you had the makings of a disaster which cost untold hundreds or more of american KIA in SEA. The ICORD committee evaluated all this under investigation and made it all clear , but as any committe in government it protected the politicians and condemned nobody involved.
The SA80 series - a boondoggle of the highest order. I could care less how damned accurate a paper puncher a issue rifle is ...if it can't handle the hard field environments a combat rifle must, it's a duffer and must go. From magazines falling out to all manner of plastic bits falling off and the jam city nature of it , not to reiterate it's cheap design and manufacture and last costly update by a foreign manufacturer of all things !.

[dougas]

HK is british owned

This weapon system was upgraded by HK, owned by BAE, therefore british firm.

[gew98]

This weapon system was upgraded by HK, owned by BAE, therefore british firm.

Dougas ; Whom owns it does not indicate nationality in this example, as the weapons were shipped outside of the UK as I understand and reworked ( again ) outside of the UK by non british laborers with the british subjects tax monies flung to the wind.

[Frogprince]

If the SA80’s now work reliably IMO the monies spent wherever getting them to that state was in all probability a more cost effective solution than starting all over. And it would not be the first time a weapon - especially auto loading rifles (and machine guns) - went into large scale production only to have design changes to make them work more reliably like: The Tokarev’s, M-1 Garands, G43’s, etc. etc.

The L1A1 and Israeli FAL rifles had ‘sand cuts’ which were not a part of the original FAL design to enable them to function more reliably with dust and dirt. Does anyone know what specific design changes were made to the SA80’s??? FP

[weedave]

Hello all,


i Would have to agree with my fellow country man rob brown that many of you dont have a clue about the sa 80. And as for ammo size 5.56 was adopted by all nato countries as the 7.62 round tended to kill most or inflict worse wounds than the 5.56 this you might be scratching your head at as most folk think you have to kill all your enemy but it is better to wound as this would tie up other troops in having to give aid and the removal of casulties from the theatre of operations.

[Grant Broadhurst]

I,ve fired the SLR and SA80 and would say i would have the SA80 in the field .

It,s a lot lighter , you can carry more ammo , you can have it slung across your chest with the excellently designed sling and with the SUSAT sight it is very accurate , i loved firing it on the ranges and in FIBUA going in and out of buildings it didn't get in the way like the SLR .

The only problem i saw with them is when we got bounced once on exercise and a oppo in a trench has his stood on by a ambusher and the long plastic barrel surround at the front got smashed off .

[gew98]

If the SA80’s now work reliably IMO the monies spent wherever getting them to that state was in all probability a more cost effective solution than starting all over. And it would not be the first time a weapon - especially auto loading rifles (and machine guns) - went into large scale production only to have design changes to make them work more reliably like: The Tokarev’s, M-1 Garands, G43’s, etc. etc.

The L1A1 and Israeli FAL rifles had ‘sand cuts’ which were not a part of the original FAL design to enable them to function more reliably with dust and dirt. Does anyone know what specific design changes were made to the SA80’s??? FP

Frog ; the whole Sa80 debalce is basically a "must be invented here mindset".
The HUGE modifications and amount of monies spent on near continual basis are in no way comparable to a small tweak on a previous PROVEN design.
The flaws in that bullpup rifle should have killed it a Loooong time ago, but politics kept it afloat...and still do.

[Rob Brown]

Well discovered this post was still here. Im pro SA80...........A2 of course.

Today I fired 2 5.56mm rounds at an East German Army helmet on the range today firing one. Now those who are familiar with it can honestly say that the sighting system is pretty good on it making it an accurate weapon.

Here was the result.......

[Rob Brown]

and the back....

[Gary Cain]

Hey Rob,

Hey thats a pretty good grouping for 5 meters


Gary

Well discovered this post was still here. Im pro SA80...........A2 of course.

Today I fired 2 5.56mm rounds at an East German Army helmet on the range today firing one. Now those who are familiar with it can honestly say that the sighting system is pretty good on it making it an accurate weapon.

Here was the result.......