SA80.........

[ESCOBAR]

I got a question for ya'll what did the British Military use before the SA80 was put into service?

[XASA]

I should leave this to our Brit friends to answer but it was a slightly modified FN FAL. I believe the nomenclature was L1A1. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Royal]

XASA, you are correct. The L1A1 SLR, a modified FN FAL (without the full-auto capability).

The M16 was also used in some theatres (not just by SF/formation recce units), particularly South Armagh in Northern Ireland and the jungle campaign in Borneo.

[Gordon]

They used a rifle named the L1A1 SLR (self-loading rifle) before the SA80. As far as I know it's a license built FN-FAL.

Here's a pic:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/fal_l1a1_suit.jpg

and here's a link to some info about it:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as24f-e.htm

[He219]

Where's the rifle??

:D
He219

[James]

WHAT KIND OF RIFLE IS THAT?

[andrew45c]

I hear the SA80A2 is a quality weapon all of the niggiling flaws removed and the acuuracy improved it is also reported to be better than the M-16 in terms of weight and size correct me if im wrong.

[Piccolo]

The level of quality of the A2 model depends on who you ask I think. I've heard good and bad things personaly. To go back to what you were saying, no, the L85 weights more then the M16, andrew.

L85 (A1 model I assume, or possibly applies to both)
Weight: 4.13 kg (with SUSAT optical sight and no magazine); 5 kg with SUSAT and loaded with magazine with 30 rounds of ammunition

--
M16A2
Weight, empty / loaded w. 30 rounds: 3.77 kg / 4.47 kg

[rob]

for those that care or know what it is that is an inch patern fal.


also, not entirely related but interesting, the british were actually issueing the m16 to some troops before the us did. why they didnt just adopt it is beyond me. probably politics involved in having a domestically designed and built weapon.

[ESCOBAR]

How come everyone says that the SA80 is a piece of garbage??

[Royal]

The L85A1 (SA80) was a piece of garbage. The L85A2 is better in terms of reliability (accuracy is debatable - it's very accurate, but so was the A1. It's no more accurate - IMHO).

Personally I still prefer the M16/M4/C7/AKM/Galil... I could go on. The A1 and A2 are a bitch to keep clean. The difference is that like the AK you now don't need to. They are still poor quality, rust easily and bits fall off (although not the mag anymore).

We're stuck with it because of a. politics - Tony Blair will never admit he was wrong. and B. Money - the MoD has spent too much on it already.

Buying the M16 wouldn't have worked because at the time we were concentrating on 7.62mm as the standard infantry round (correctly IMHO). 5.56mm was only for certain specific roles - such as NI and jungle Ops.

[Argyll]

One of the biggest gripes we had prior to changeover from SLR to the SA80 was that you cannot fire the SA80 from the left shoulder!!,unlike the SLR,and I'm sure part of the APWT with the SLR involved firing it from the opposite shoulder,and with the SR6 respirator on too!
I never liked the SA80,as did many of the jocks,mainly due to the fact that after the 1st exercise we did with it,after the 1st attack no one had any ammo left as everyone was firing on full auto,as this was a novelty to us!!So the Buzz word was conserve ammo and count your shots!!,as it always was with the SLR!
The SLR had stopping power too,targets fell and did not get back up again when hit!!I was told a story that the SAS were trialing some down in the Falklands in 82,and one guy hit an Argy with 10+ rounds and he still did not die!,wasn't pretty but death was not instant!,a well placed 7.62 was highly effective!!!

[ESCOBAR]

Oh.............the C7A1's are getting old tho, they should at least update them, they finally just replacing the C3A1 sniper rifle with this........

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/c3repl-4.gif

[Royal]

Argyll - it wasn't the hooligan's it was the Mountain & Arctic Warfare Cadre (as was - then BPT now BRF). Most carried M16's a few had SLR's. The incident was at Top Malo house.

[martinexsquaddie]

I heard the argie hit with 10 rounds actually livedbut that was with the old m193 round SA80 was designed to use the SS109 5.56 round a diffrent beastie entirley. Idealy you need something between the 5.56 round and 7.62nato

[rob]

The SLR had stopping power too,targets fell and did not get back up again when hit!!I was told a story that the SAS were trialing some down in the Falklands in 82,and one guy hit an Argy with 10+ rounds and he still did not die!,wasn't pretty but death was not instant!,a well placed 7.62 was highly effective!!!

it is impossible to have an instant kill unless you hit in the head or other vital area with any round almost. when the enemies take drugs like in somolia or in the 94 north holywood shootout it doesnt matter what type of round you hit them with. it is a little unfair to compare a intermediate round with a rifle round also. in vietnam their wher documented times when they said the 5.56 took off limbs or left a 5 inch exit wound. almost all of the sf groups in vietnam prefered 5.56 over the 7.62 nato because of it lower recoil and lack of unneeded range in the terran. while in the desert right now many chose the 7.65 nato for its range over wide open terran. they are two different rounds for two different things. niether is superior to the other.

these are my view feel free to elaborate as i am no where near being an expert on anything.

[specialairservice]

Apart from the SAS, SBS, Pathfinder Platoon and royal marine mountain leaders, do any other british units use the m16/203 or m4

[Argyll]

Thanks for that Royal,I knew it was one of the selected elite!!!

[Royal]

Apart from the SAS, SBS, Pathfinder Platoon and royal marine mountain leaders, do any other british units use the m16/203 or m4

None of the units mentioned use either. See the Diemaco thread a while back.

BTW ML is a qualification not a unit. The Cadre was a cold war annomaly created for the defence of Norway. It was of course used in the South Atlantic. Not all memebers of BRF are ML's and not all ML's are in BRF.

[specialairservice]

so does anyone else in the british military use C7/C8.

[Royal]

Other than a few anomolies like CTCRM, ITC Wales, the SASC and a couple of others, no.

[Argyll]

So the M&AWC have been binned altogether then?
I'm not sure regarding the Diemaco thing,some Infantry units COP mays still use the M4 or the M16/203 combo's,some I know are using the HK53 now

[Royal]

The Cadre has long gone. :(

As I said "and a couple of others"... To the best of my knowledge the UK has never used the M4 (other than exchanges/trials).

[Piccolo]

when the enemies take drugs like in somolia or in the 94 north holywood shootout

1997, actually.

[rob]

when the enemies take drugs like in somolia or in the 94 north holywood shootout

1997, actually.

incident i am refering to happend in 94. there was a movie about it called 40 minutes i believe. there where 2 suspects armed with ak47 copies whereing body armour that took drugs before. one of the suspects was shot in upwords of 30 times, those are the ones that got passed the armour while the other killed himself. it is the incident that did the most to propt that police are better equiped because they were running to local gun shops to get more powerfull weapons then their 9mm pistols.

[Piccolo]

Negative, that hapened in 1997. It's known as the North Hollwood Shootout, btw.

[rob]

my bad dont know where i got the date from but i could have sworn it be right. thanks for the correction. :oops:

[Silverado]

So correct me if I'm wrong, the SA80 can't be reconfigured to fire left-handed ala the Steyer Aug? If that's the case then it strikes me as being bloody short-sighted ( no pun intended). Sure anybody can teach themselves to fire from their other shoulder but if your left eye dominant you will always be compromised firing from the right. It amazes me that the MoD place conformity (you will all carry your weapon in the proper prescribed manner!!!) over a soldiers ability to carry out his job to the best of his ability. Nuts :cantbeli:

[DeltaWhisky58]

Nuts

Says it all mate.
As long as we have the free world's worst government, our Army will be stuck with the free world's worst rifle. To think that the British government actually owned Heckler & Koch, yet allowed modifications to the SA-80 when it could have had the G-36 much cheaper! :roll: :roll: :roll:

Roll on the elections.....................

[Gringo]

Bye bye, TONY!!!!

[specialairservice]

Who actually owns Heckler & Koch? Germany or Britain

[Royal]

Who actually owns Heckler & Koch? Germany or Britain

They're a German company (non-state owned).

[martinexsquaddie]

your going to vote for IDS :roll:
looks like were stuck with TB for another 5years unless the torys make a come back. Did'nt the torys force SA80 on us anyway ;)

[Gringo]

Heckler and Koch was owned by British Aerospace Enterprises but is now owned by Walther (maker of the famous Bond pistol, the PPK)

[DeltaWhisky58]

As I said earlier - Heckler and Koch was owned by Britain at the time the company carried out the SA80A2 mods - they could have supplied us new G-36 rifles at a cheaper price.

[Gordon]

When was H&K bought by Walther? Anyone know?

[Gringo]

As I said earlier - Heckler and Koch was owned by Britain at the time the company carried out the SA80A2 mods - they could have supplied us new G-36 rifles at a cheaper price.

I know u said "was", I was just going into further detail that specifically H&K was owned by BAE and is now owned by Walther ok?

And Gordon, I believe that it was in December 2002.

[rob]

i would think that hk is a bigger company then walther. well what ever.

[GazB]

Idealy you need something between the 5.56 round and 7.62nato

Like a 7 x 44mm? :D

(That is the .280 cal round the EM-2 was originally designed for... later a 4.85mm round was put forward, but the .223 round won.)

According to my information the 7 x 44mm round had the following specs:
Round Length: 64.26mm
Case Length: 43.18mm
Rim Diameter: 11.99mm
Bullet Weight: 8.42grammes
Muzzle Velovity: 730m/s

(velocity also given under EM2 entry as 771m/s).

Seems to have a slightly higher velocity than the 7.62 x 39mm AK round with a slightly heavier bullet.

[martinexsquaddie]

the em2 round was, probably the best answer as standard infantry round and politics screwed it up

[Royal]

the royal marines are starting to use them now.

Sorry but those are old photo's of BRF.

BTW it's the Royal Marines

[Chris1]

[quote=specialairservice]
also, i found a report on the SA80 and its problems, take a look!

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/SA80.html
rofl
1) the Para is an RMP, anyone who has ever had to avoid them would notice the colour of the beret, if not the capbadge.
2) the SA80 was based on the Sterling Arms AR18
So the writer suggests (a) replacing the SA80 with the weapon it copied and modified (b) replacing the SA80 with a weapon marketed as a civilian model! (the AR-180B)
3) The cost to replace the SA80 would be far higher than the A2 mod cost, You're looking at replacing everything from the weapons themselves, to the racks they are kept in, not to mention spares and the cost of removing the old rifles from service (as the author mentioned, no chance to flog them off to some 3rd world african country this time)
4) The author notes the M4's short size, the SA80 is roughly the same length with far better ballistic performance.

Bear in mind, that for all 'Tony's' faults,
who privatised the industry?
Maggie and her lot.
Who made redundant most of the work force?
Maggie and her lot.
Who forced the changes in the original design?
Maggie and her lot.
Who made sure it was made 'by the lowest bidder'?
Guess.

[specialairservice]

The picture of the Royal Marines was taken in afganistan last year. There not that old.

[Howard]

You have to remember that the M16 family has been around for a long time. It was widely mistrusted by US troops used to the M14 at first, even in the jungle. It's quite possible that the SA80 family will settle down to become a well liked weapon with use and modification over time, as did the M16. The only problem is, the M16 family has a hell of a head start.

[rob]

actually first reports of the m16 were very promissing. it was well liked by the rangers, british and australian troops who where able to use it. i was not until the army started issueing it to all troops where the reposrts of failers where coming in because these troops where not trained on how to clean the weapon or even issued a cleaning kit.

[Chris1]

You have to remember that the M16 family has been around for a long time. It was widely mistrusted by US troops used to the M14 at first, even in the jungle. It's quite possible that the SA80 family will settle down to become a well liked weapon with use and modification over time, as did the M16. The only problem is, the M16 family has a hell of a head start.
18 years.
Some of the lads joining this year will be younger than this rifle.

I still maintain, based on my experiance as an infantryman, that may well have been different to some of the others about, that the later model A1's were/are not as bad as some would say. (and when I say this, I mean the OAP's who still miss the SMLE and like to write letters to newspapers, as well as the author of the posted 'report' not those who have experiance with the rifle and simply don't like it (DW, Royal))
For the most part, its a moot point anyway, the modifications have been done and are ongoing and a better rifle has emerged. The 'major faults' (not able to fire left handed) in my own opinion, simply aren't.
That can be argued, everyone has their preference but as the man says, thats my story and i'm sticking to it :)

[ESCOBAR]

I think we all should just use M1's again........and the Thompson. ;)

[D.E. Watters]

Heckler and Koch was owned by British Aerospace Enterprises but is now owned by Walther (maker of the famous Bond pistol, the PPK)

No, the early news stories that named UMAREX as the buyer were merely guessing. (UMAREX owns Walther.) Press releases by BAe and HK indicate that HK was bought out by an independent group of investors, including some senior HK employees.

[martinexsquaddie]

when I was in the thing kept breaking on me once it broke when put in a weapons roll for transport and the LSW was always a JOKE.
IF ITS SUCH A GREAT WEAPON WHY DOES NOBODY ELSE USE IT AND THE SAS won't touch it with a barge pole?????????????????????

[Royal]

You have to remember that the M16 family has been around for a long time. It was widely mistrusted by US troops used to the M14 at first, even in the jungle. It's quite possible that the SA80 family will settle down to become a well liked weapon with use and modification over time, as did the M16. The only problem is, the M16 family has a hell of a head start.

As Remov & Martin have pointed out in other threads, the genesis of the SA80 goes back to the early 1950's, so if anything it is slightly older than the M16 family.

Personally I have no problem with the bullpup concept as a shooter, it is far more accurate than 'traditional' rifles such as the M4. What I do have a problem with is poor design and build quality; no conversion for left hand firing, too many tools required, too many fiddly bits to loose/break, too many nooks and crannys for crap to collect in, poorly fitting parts and of course too many bits falling off (although the final point seems to have been resolved by H&K).

[D.E. Watters]

As Remov & Martin have pointed out in other threads, the genesis of the SA80 goes back to the early 1950's, so if anything it is slightly older than the M16 family.

Actually, the SA80 has little, if anything, in common with the EM-2...other than they are both bullpups and both have optics.

The EM-2 versus the SA80:

Long stroke gas system versus short stroke gas system
Locking flaps versus rotary bolt
Charging handle mounted forward on the gas piston versus mounted on the bolt
1x optic versus 4x optic
Garand-style flag safety versus safety lever
A push-through fire selector near the thumb versus a selector lever at the rear of the receiver.
Non-hinged receiver versus hinged receiver
Mag catch flapper versus mag catch button
Striker fired versus hammer fired

The list could go on. In terms of ergonomics, they would have been much better off if they had merely scaled down the EM-2 design. Instead, they bullpup an AR-18. Heck, the EM-2 with its 24"+ barrel and a bipod is still
lighter than the L85A2 (both unloaded).

[DeltaWhisky58]

D E Watters wrote:


Royal wrote:
As Remov & Martin have pointed out in other threads, the genesis of the SA80 goes back to the early 1950's, so if anything it is slightly older than the M16 family.


Actually, the SA80 has little, if anything, in common with the EM-2...other than they are both bullpups and both have optics.

The only thing the EM2 and the SA80 have in common is as stated above, hoever the SA80 does not owe its long heritage to the EM-2, but more correctly to the Sterling Arms AR18, which in turn was a licensed production/development of the Armalite AR-180 which dates back as far if not fuerhter than the M-16 (originally John Stoner's Armalite AR-15).

Anyway, this is all academic, we are still stuck with a dreadful rifle which seems to have little but accuracy in its favour. To replacve it with the M-16 or its derivatives would be a retrograde step IMO. The obvious weapon to succeed the SA80 is the Heckler & Koch G-36, already trialled by and in service with the SAS and possible SBS and some UK police units.

OK, i've said my bit, but as this is the umpteenth post on this subject, so I guess there is plenty yet to come.................

[D.E. Watters]

The only thing the EM2 and the SA80 have in common is as stated above, however the SA80 does not owe its long heritage to the EM-2, but more correctly to the Sterling Arms AR18, which in turn was a licensed production/development of the Armalite AR-180 which dates back as far if not furhter than the M-16 (originally John Stoner's Armalite AR-15).


Actually, Eugene Stoner is responsible for designing the 7.62mm AR-10 and AR-16 rifles. Robert Freemont and L. James Sullivan scaled down the AR-10 to create the AR-15 in 1957. ArmaLite's parent company Fairchild sold the production rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. The select fire AR-15 became type-classified as the M16 (USAF) and the XM16E1 (US Army) in 1963. The US Army officially adopts the XM16E1 as the M16A1 in 1967.

During 1963, Art Miller scaled down the AR-16 to create the AR-18. This was intended to give ArmaLite a competitor to the AR-15/M16 family. The semi-auto version of the AR-18 became the AR-180. ArmaLite sold the production rights for the AR-18 to Howa (Japan) in 1967. In 1969, ArmaLite opened its own AR-18 production line in Costa Mesa, CA. ArmaLite sold the production rights for the AR-18 to Sterling in 1974.

[Royal]

As I said the concept went back to the 50's.

The EM2 was a bullpup concept and anyone who has used both an M16 (or variant) and an SA80 will attest to the points of similarity.

DW58 is right, the M4 would be a sideways move, if not a retrograde step. I can't really comment on the G36, as I've only used it on the ranges to date. I do know that the trials versions we've had have had the sight rails replaced with commercial ones.

IMHO it's a bit 'plasticy' in the same way as the SA80 (and in a way that the Steyr AUG isn't).

[Graeme]

How come everyone says that the SA80 is a piece of garbage??

Primarily because the A1 was a peice of crap.

First of all, I'd like to say I've never fired a round from either an A1, or an A2. I have HANDLED both. Both rifles feel to me like a tin can, they rattle, the upper and lower(I'm not sure if they come apart as an upper and lower, but its what it looked like to me.) rattle freely, you can slide them a few mm left to right, back and forth. If you turned the rifle upside down and smacked the fore arm, the top of the fore arm(it swings open to allow cleaning of the gas system iirc) would just swing freely open. Dust covers didn't stay shut. The poor positioning of the magazine catch is a pain in the arse(although I'm sure a soldier trained on the weapon wouldn't mind it), and I fail to see how anyone with cold fingers could operate it(well, I couldn't easily at the time.). We were not firing these rifles, we were merely handling them. There is the possability that these rifles have been around for years, and aren't taken care of very well, which would explain all the rattling and poor fitting of the upper and lower. I'm definately not a fan of the SA80, but I DO like the LSW(L86 i think?), but I wouldn't like to use it in a supportive role, more as a DMR or similar.

Just my, rather uneducated, thoughts on the subject. :)

[martinexsquaddie]

no they come out of the skip like that :D

[James]

Maybe the UK should go back to the FAL (L1A1 was it?). Why didn't the UK adopt the FNC? I think that is basically the FAL in 5.56 mm, no? When the UK decided to adopt the SA80, what else did they test?

If anyone can provide info to answer these questions, I would appreciate it.

[D.E. Watters]

Maybe the UK should go back to the FAL (L1A1 was it?). Why didn't the UK adopt the FNC? I think that is basically the FAL in 5.56 mm, no? When the UK decided to adopt the SA80, what else did they test?


No, the FNC is not a scaled down FAL. FN made a mini-FAL 5.56mm prototype in 1964, but they decided that it would be too expensive. (This was during the time that the stamped receiver HK G3 was chipping away at the machined receiver FAL's market shares.) Instead, FN chose to experiment with stamped receivers and rotary bolt systems. The first effort became the CAL, which appeared in 1966. This was evidentally still too complicated, and in 1976, they introduced the first prototypes of the FNC.

To be honest, I don't believe that the British MOD ever seriously intended to adopt anything other than a domestic product, with particular bias in favor of any development created by the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock.

[rob]

impel make a scaled down version of the fal that is 5.56 and in the process they cahnged it to a rotor locking bolt. but other wise it looks like a fal with a ar15 mag.

i like the ak 5 better then the fnc. but then again that is just a license built fnc with a few improvements.

[martinexsquaddie]

except maggie sold the factory to BAE
who closed it down and subcontrcted the work to companies that had never made fire arms before or since thats one of the reasons build quality is so piss poor

[D.E. Watters]

except maggie sold the factory to BAE
who closed it down and subcontrcted the work to companies that had never made fire arms before or since thats one of the reasons build quality is so piss poor

The SA-80 was already in production by RASF-Enfield before it was privatized. Issues such as the poor ergonomics and tinny receiver stampings predate the BAe takeover. Certainly, BAe/Royal Ordnance's "lego rifle" mindset towards production didn't help matters. However, it was already a flawed design.

[martinexsquaddie]

true should ship all of them to the 3rd world
help world peace
they'd soon jam and rust and break if you'd try to use them them as a club they,d break :roll:

[Royal]

When the UK decided to adopt the SA80, what else did they test?

There were no real comparative trials when the L85A1 came into service - the M16 had been in use in UK forces for at least 20 years at that point anyway. The FAMAS and Steyr AUG weren't considered (although the Falklands Islands Defence Force bought the Steyr - by a strange anomaly they are funded by the Foreign Office, rather than the MoD. The story goes that they were given a budget and someone forgot to add the clause about buying British).


but I DO like the LSW(L86 i think?), but I wouldn't like to use it in a supportive role, more as a DMR or similar

That's why the new sharpshooters rifle in .338 has been introduced - far superior to the Long Silly Weapon.

[Loskop]

I think you will find that the FIDF funding comes from FI gov

[kamarian]

thanks for digging up an old, dead thread. Time to bury this one in concrete.

Concrete GP's anyone?

[DeltaWhisky58]

I think you will find that the FIDF funding comes from FI gov

I really don't understand why you had to dig up a three year old thread to tell us what had already been posted on the post prior to yours. The FIDF's Steyr AUGs were in fact funded by The UK's Foreign & Commonwealth Office, who fund the Falkland Islands Government above and beyond their self funding budgetary options.

In future please do not dig up ancient threads for something as trivial as this, especially when such detail had already been established.

[Yimmy]

I knew that the FIDF used AUG's, but what else do they use do you know?

They are part-timers arn't they like our TA?

[WKD]

Never mind, time to bury the beaten horse. Sorry.

[digrar]

This one ran its course 3 and a half years ago. Locked.