FN FAL L1A1 SLR -vs- Enfield L85 (SA80) assault rifle

[snake_eater]

I do not understand why the British armed forces would drop a fine weapon like the L1A1 SLR for a POS like the Enfield L85.

[Seeds]

Probably because their L1A1 fleet was worn out to the point they could not teach marksmanship with weapons that would not group, for NATO standardisation to 5.56 and a whole lot of other reasons

[Brozozo]

The fact that all of NATO converted to 5.56 was definitely a major factor.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

SLR is the way to go

[Seeds]

While a great weapon, it is still too heavy and long, esspecially for mech or MOUT operations

[Aussie E]

The Australian SASR used the SLR with devastating results in Vietnam, many were modified with short barrels and converted to full-auto. In one friendly fire incident between an ARVN platoon and a SASR patrol, after the firing stopped the ARVN wanted to see the .50 cal HMG that the Aussie's had with them, they had mistaken the slowy heavy sound of the SLR's for a .50 cal. If anyones interested the book "Behind Enemy Lines" by O'Farrel has this and many other great stories about his experience with the SASR in Vietnam.

[digrar]

I am proud to have served with a man of Terry O'Farell's calibre. He was a company comander in 8/9RAR just before we shut it down.
The book is a good one as well. Highly recommend it.

[Ballistic.]

The SLR is a damn fine weapon, heavy but I found it acurate and easy to use. Had one hell of a kick for a young Cadet to fire (many years ago :)) But I thoroughly enjoyed handling it. :)

I guess the biggest reason for the swap was standardisation, lighter, and a replacement for aging kit.

[Uninen]

The weapons are of different classes.. you cant compare em..

Be as it may that SA 80 replaced L1A1, the SA 80 still is assault rifle and L1A1 was semi automatic battle rifle...

Its like comparing SVD Dragunov (WHICH IS NOT SNIPER RIFLE!!!) to AK-74.. makes no sense.

[martinexsquaddie]

simple 120 rounds basic load slr
600 rounds 5.56
soldiers in the falklands were clearing trenches at bayonet pint as they'd run out of ammo.
I loved the SLR but the ability to carry more rounds makes the SA80 better for war fighting personally I'd take the SLR but we are not allowoed to own semi auto rifles :(
rumour had it they brough in the ban because too many squaddies were looking at buying civi 5.56 rifles :(

[Tony Williams]

The weapons are of different classes.. you cant compare em..


Well, you can't avoid comparing them as one replaced the other as the British Army's standard battle rifle.

There are three different issues here: the calibre, the configuration and the quality/reliability.

The calibre change was a result of the adoption of the 5.56mm as the NATO standard. There are pros and cons - lighter ammo weight for the 5.56mm plus lighter recoil enabling controlled automatic fire, but less effectiveness and range. Personally I think that something in between would have been better - and still would - and maybe we'll eventually get that with the new 6.8x43 Rem SPC.

The bullpup configuration had been favoured by the British Army since the late 1940s; in the early 1950s they actually adopted the EM-2 bullpup in 7mm calibre, before the Americans forced them to drop it in favour of a 7.62mm calibre weapon. However, the SA80 is not a very good bullpup design, being right-hand only and rather heavy with a marked rearward weight bias.

The quality/reliability issues with the SA80 are very well known. However, they now seem to have been corrected. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm for the full story.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Gringo]

When will these polls ever end!!!!!????? :P

[Royal]

The calibre change was a result of the adoption of the 5.56mm as the NATO standard. There are pros and cons - lighter ammo weight for the 5.56mm plus lighter recoil enabling controlled automatic fire,

Without a bipod or better still a tripod there is no such thing. Automatic fire is necessary for room/trench clearing, but controlled it ain't.

The bullpup configuration had been favoured by the British Army since the late 1940s; in the early 1950s they actually adopted the EM-2 bullpup in 7mm calibre, before the Americans forced them to drop it in favour of a 7.62mm calibre weapon.

Not true. EM-2 was triled, but never adopted - largely for the reason you've given.

However, the SA80 is not a very good bullpup design, being right-hand only and rather heavy with a marked rearward weight bias.

The right/left handed issue is true, although I've never met a left handed soldier who couldn't be trained to shoot (a rifle) right handed. The weight issue is actually an advantage as it keeps a short weapon well seated in the shoulder and thus aids the accuracy of what is already a very accurate weapon.

[Stavka]

FAL all the way baby, all the way! woot

[Falco]

Never fired either of them so I can't say for sure. Could we say that the L1A1 is like the M14 while the SA80 is like the M4/16?

[Gringo]

the SLR I suppose. Not a fan of bullpup at all.

[Tony Williams]

The bullpup configuration had been favoured by the British Army since the late 1940s; in the early 1950s they actually adopted the EM-2 bullpup in 7mm calibre, before the Americans forced them to drop it in favour of a 7.62mm calibre weapon.

Not true. EM-2 was triled, but never adopted - largely for the reason you've given..

From 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition':

"The .280/30 cartridge was formally adopted in August 1951 as the '7 mm Mk 1Z', at the same time as the EM-2 was adopted as the 'Rifle, No.9 Mk 1'. "

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Steve Andrews]

I am a big fan of the 7.62 round and I LOVE my M14 but I would choose the SA80 over the SLR for COMBAT.
I found the SA80 to be a very reliable weapon and extremely accurate. I doubt I could hit a fig.12 at 500m with an SLR and I never liked the fact that the rear sight comes off with the receiver cover.
With SA80 I never had a single stoppage (apart from a couple that were due to damaged lips on magazines)
And I'd rather carry 840 rounds of 5.56 than a couple of hundred 7.62.

[D.E. Watters]

"The .280/30 cartridge was formally adopted in August 1951 as the '7 mm Mk 1Z', at the same time as the EM-2 was adopted as the 'Rifle, No.9 Mk 1'. "

Tony is quite correct. The adoption was quite controversal, with support of the 7mm EM-2 vs. the 7.62mm FN FAL being effectively split down party lines: Labour vs. Conservative. Of course, nothing came of the EM-2's adoption due to the Labour Party losing its majority in October 1951. Prime Minister Winston Churchill offically recinded the EM-2's adoption in December 1951.

[Royal]

"The .280/30 cartridge was formally adopted in August 1951 as the '7 mm Mk 1Z', at the same time as the EM-2 was adopted as the 'Rifle, No.9 Mk 1'. "

Tony is quite correct. The adoption was quite controversal, with support of the 7mm EM-2 vs. the 7.62mm FN FAL being effectively split down party lines: Labour vs. Conservative. Of course, nothing came of the EM-2's adoption due to the Labour Party losing its majority in October 1951. Prime Minister Winston Churchill offically recinded the EM-2's adoption in December 1951.

I'll say it again. The EM-2 was trialed but never adopted. It was never issued to British troops for any purpose other than trials.

[D.E. Watters]

I'll say it again. The EM-2 was trialed but never adopted. It was never issued to British troops for any purpose other than trials.

Tony and I never said it was issued, simply that it was officially adopted. Issue dates for First Unit Equipped (FUE) can often run years after an official adoption date.

To give an example, Britain officially adopted the FN FAL in February 1954, yet the final engineering drawings of the L1A1 were not sealed until March 1957, with production starting soon afterwards. So FUE didn't occur until later than that.

On the US side, the M14 and the heavy barrel M15 were adopted in May 1957, yet Springfield Armory didn't receive its pilot production order for the M14 until April 1958. The first 50 production M14 were not even completed until July 1959. The M15 was never even put into production prior to its being declared Obsolete in December 1959.

[Zentrum Jagdkampf]

I was on the range with both weapons and the FAL had no jams!

[REMOV]

Not true. EM-2 was triled, but never adopted - largely for the reason you've given.Well, EM-2 WAS officially adopted in Britain as Rifle, Automatic, No.9 Mk.1 but never put into service. Everybody happy now? ;)

[REMOV]

From 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition': "The .280/30 cartridge was formally adopted in August 1951 as the '7 mm Mk 1Z', at the same time as the EM-2 was adopted as the 'Rifle, No.9 Mk 1'. "Is it fair to cite your own book (AFAIR not published yet)? ;)

[Herrmannek]

From 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition': "The .280/30 cartridge was formally adopted in August 1951 as the '7 mm Mk 1Z', at the same time as the EM-2 was adopted as the 'Rifle, No.9 Mk 1'. "Is it fair to cite your own book (AFAIR not published yet)? ;)

Everyone does so, why he shouldn't be allowed :)

[Tony Williams]

From 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition': "The .280/30 cartridge was formally adopted in August 1951 as the '7 mm Mk 1Z', at the same time as the EM-2 was adopted as the 'Rifle, No.9 Mk 1'. "Is it fair to cite your own book (AFAIR not published yet)? ;)

Well, it's the very best source on the subject that I know of :D

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[oldsoak]

How many EM2's were actually made ? Any idea anyone - must have been a few made for trials, pattern waepons etc.
rgds
ps - isnt the old .280 performance close to the new 6.8mm round the US are allegedly looking at ?

[Tony Williams]

A few dozen EM-2s were made, at least. The .280 has rather different ballistics to the 6.8x43, biased more towards long-range performance. Here's another quote from that excellent source which I'd better not mention ;)

"Next in the field came the British, who in 1945 set up the Small Arms Calibre Panel in order to determine the optimum cartridge for a lightweight rifle. After many calculations and experiments mainly involving rounds of between .25 to .27 inch calibre (6.35-6.8 mm), they reported in 1947 in favour of further development of two alternative designs. One was a .27 inch (6.8 x 46) firing a steel-cored 100 grain bullet at 2,750-2,800 fps (6.5 g at 840-850 m/s), which still retained 81 ft lbs (109 j) of energy at 2,000 yards (1,830 m), a significant figure as the estimated energy required to inflict an injury to an unprotected man is around 60 ft lbs (80 j). The other was a .276 (7 x 43: later redesignated .280 to avoid confusion with earlier cartridges) which was tested with bullets weighing between 8.4 and 9 grams (130-140 grains) at between 747-710 m/s (2,450-2,330 fps). The 130 grain/2,450 fps loading had a retained energy of 100 ft lbs at 2,000 yards (135 joules at 1,830 m). Eventually a loading of a Belgian-designed 9 g bullet at 736 m/s (140 grains at 2,415 fps) was decided on. The .280 calibre (actually 7 mm, with a .276 inch bore and .284 bullet) was a little larger than was thought ideal but it was selected for further development, reportedly in order to try to meet American preferences for good long-range performance. For the same reason, the original case rim diameter was increased slightly to match that of the American .30-06 to enable them to rebarrel existing guns more easily, leading to a change in designation to .280/30."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[REMOV]

Well, it's the very best source on the subject that I know of :DHaha, you've won! And don't tempt me, otherwise I'll order one with your autograph ;)

[REMOV]

ps - isnt the old .280 performance close to the new 6.8mm round the US are allegedly looking at ?As an interesting fact, also in Poland in 1973-1975 was program called "Marszyt" which main aim was to create the new intermediate round. And it was designed and produced, 7 x 41 mm, maximum ordinate 240mm at 300m, Vo=770m/s, weight 7,68 g, Eo=2200J.

It was also a plan in 1976-1980, called "Lantan" to create whole rifle family (similar to the Stoner's 63 idea) to that round (i.e. short airborne assault rifle, assault rifle, sniper rifle, automatic rifle, machinegun and board machine gun - the last two belt-fed). It was created only the basic assault rifle (two models) and several thousands of 7 x 41mm ammunition. That program was canceled in 1980.

[Uninen]

martinexsquaddie,

You mentioned Falklands.. do you also recall i incedent in which Argentinian soldier has shot and hit SIX TIMES with M16 rifle, and he just wouldnt quit the fight..

(Was still dangerous and firing his weapon after 6 hits.....)

Things like this dont happen with 7.62x51mm weapons...

[Mark Sman]

I'll take the Enfield.

The Lee-Enfield No1. MkIII* thank you very much.

[D.E. Watters]

How many EM2's were actually made ? Any idea anyone - must have been a few made for trials, pattern weapons etc.


According to "EM-2 Concept & Design" by Thomas B. Dugelby, the production figures break out as follows:

20: Original .280/30 models by RSAF Enfield (One or two of these were actually made by Chambons. Another pair were years later converted to 6.25x43mm.)

4: "HV" models by Chambons (A pair of each were originally chambered in either 7x49mm or 7.62x51mm. The 7mm HV-1 is later converted to 7.62x51mm and finally .30-06.)

10: 7.62x51mm models by BSA

15: 7.62x51mm models by RSAF Enfield

10: 7x51mm models by Canadian Arsenals Ltd.

[GazB]

Without a bipod or better still a tripod there is no such thing. Automatic fire is necessary for room/trench clearing, but controlled it ain't.

I have seen soldiers firing bursts of fire at targets from AK-74s with impacts close enough to be called controlled at 100m or so. In fact when fitted with the under barrel grenade launchers the rifle barely appears to move during firing.

The right/left handed issue is true, although I've never met a left handed soldier who couldn't be trained to shoot (a rifle) right handed.

Firing around cover you will miss not beign able to swap shoulders. When I hunt I usually prefer to fire from concealment (cover is not necessary as they don't shoot back). With an SKS or an AK I can do that... even with an AR-15 I can do that and I can certainly do that with my SLR. So instead of exposing my chest and head firing around the left side of a wall I just expose my shoulder and the side of my head to my left eye.

The weight issue is actually an advantage as it keeps a short weapon well seated in the shoulder and thus aids the accuracy of what is already a very accurate weapon.

Most conventional rifles are front heavy for a reason. Rear heavy rifles tend to flip up under recoil. With underbarrel grenade launchers the AK series is considered by some to be too front heavy so bullpup models were developed especially to balance this out. Because of this with a grenade launcher on it I would expect the SA-80 would be better handling than the SLR, but otherwise it is just too damn heavy for what it is supposed to be.

with an SLR and I never liked the fact that the rear sight comes off with the receiver cover.


My SLR has a fixed flip up rear sight that is part of the rear portion of the gun... which model did you use?
(mine also has the flipout cocking handle).

ps - isnt the old .280 performance close to the new 6.8mm round the US are allegedly looking at ?

So Ironic... what a waste.

A late friend of mine I used to enjoy hunting with was in the territorials and thought the Steyr AUG was a neat rabbit gun but he wouldn't use it on game bigger than a goat if he ever could take it hunting.

As a hunter myself I wouldn't use intermediate rounds on deer sized game except at very close range.

[Zentrum Jagdkampf]

The Enfield L85 is a piece of **** which calls itself an assault rifle!It should be replaced by a good bullpup like the AUG!

[Steve Andrews]

[quote]with an SLR and I never liked the fact that the rear sight comes off with the receiver cover.


My SLR has a fixed flip up rear sight that is part of the rear portion of the gun... which model did you use?
(mine also has the flipout cocking handle).


Sorry...thinking Galil there... with the SLR the thing I don't like is that the rear section is hinged with the forward section. This always gave me worries about wobbling and effects on zero.
http://www.african-hunter.com/fnslr_p04p35v5no3.jpg

[oldsoak]

There is a way of shooting the SA80 from the left shoulder - its not official and its only in extremis where a better firing position cannot be had -set gas plug to the grenade setting ( this will make it single shot ) one can then shoot from the left shoulder, albeit having to manually recycle the action. Poor, but better than nothing. Oh, and dont forget to change the gas setting back when your finished. :)
rgds

[Red]

I have never fired the SA-80 but i have lots of trigger time on the SLR,that is one fantastic weapon,most of the ones we used were british hand-me-downs so we had to do a whole lot of cleaning but i have to say that the SLR is one of the best rifles that i know.

[Michael RVR]

There is a way of shooting the SA80 from the left shoulder - its not official and its only in extremis where a better firing position cannot be had -set gas plug to the grenade setting ( this will make it single shot ) one can then shoot from the left shoulder, albeit having to manually recycle the action. Poor, but better than nothing. Oh, and dont forget to change the gas setting back when your finished. :)
rgds

You'd want to make sure that first round hit wouldn't you ? :P Is there not case deflectors available for the SA80, as there is for the AUG? Not that i've ever seen one for real, but it would be a better solution than what you're suggesting. ;)

[oldsoak]

The case doesnt eject as the gas setting shuts off the gas flow from the barrel. The rifle doesnt cock itself as a result, you have to do that manually after every shot on that setting, so you dont get the problem of getting the cocking lever ( which is attached directly to the breech block ) coming back and smacking you in the jaw. It is far from ideal, and its a problem the five minutes of thought could have solved with the cocking handle placed elsewhere ~( maybe like where it is on the AUG ) . It was commented on at trials apparently but the opinion of mere squaddies was ignored. Anyway, the method is only for where the firing position is such that you cant do anything but fire from the left shoulder. Yes you'd want to be a good shot :)

[-Max-]

FN FAL all the way ! woot

One of the best rifles ever made... :)

I will take a FAL (or the lighter FAL-Para) with a Trijicon ACOG scope anyday...

http://apollo.demigod.org/~zak/DigiCam/2003-ACOG/small/IMG_0195.jpg

PS: The second rifle on the pic is not a FAL, i know... ;)

[oldsoak]

FAL in 5.56mm ! - that way no changes in weapons handling or drill, all thats changed is the calibre and dimensions. I suspect that the FAL was not a cheap weapon to make which may be a factor in why this approach was not taken.

[Haiw]

It's called FNC... ;)

(Yeah I know, it's different, but there's some resemblance)

[Sabre]

Sorry...thinking Galil there... with the SLR the thing I don't like is that the rear section is hinged with the forward section. This always gave me worries about wobbling and effects on zero.

My SA80 wobbles like a bitch. The pistol grip probably moves through 5mm if I move it side to side. Bollocks.

I don't think the SLR is heavy. It's a bit long but that's probably because I was used to the SA80. I would argue that the SA80 was too heavy for its design, should be much lighter. Prefer the G3A4K though.

I have seen soldiers firing bursts of fire at targets from AK-74s with impacts close enough to be called controlled at 100m or so. In fact when fitted with the under barrel grenade launchers the rifle barely appears to move during firing.


The AK 74 has a very efective muzzle brake. It reduces recoil to a great extent. I'm sure that it is possible to have an accurate group with an AK74 on automatic, but it is not practical to fire on auto the whole time. Single aimed shots remain the most effective means of dropping the target, and for reducing ammo expenditure.

[Ian H]

They did make something called a CAL, which basically was a FAL in 5.56mm, but it wasn't popular and didn't last long. No more info, sorry.

[Red]

The SLR in my opinion was not heavy,it was long but not heavy.Even though i loved the SLR,i felt the G3A3 was a very good rifle which eventually replaced the SLR

[Steve Andrews]

Sorry...thinking Galil there... with the SLR the thing I don't like is that the rear section is hinged with the forward section. This always gave me worries about wobbling and effects on zero.

My SA80 wobbles like a bitch. The pistol grip probably moves through 5mm if I move it side to side. Bollocks.

The TMH may wobble, but the SUSAT will not wobble in relation to the barrel.

Front sight to rear sight wobble always concerned me (as a marksman ;) )

[rob]

It's called FNC... ;)

(Yeah I know, it's different, but there's some resemblance)

they both shoot bullets and have FN stamped on the side. other then that they are completely different.

i have heard stories of soldiers who used the fal felt the fnc was a cheap feeling weapon when they switched. but then again the same it true for the fal to sa80 swith and the m14 to m16 and so on.

[Uninen]

FN FAL in 5.56??????

Well it isnt the FNC or CAL.........

But Rather Brazilian IMBEL MD2.

Link! (check out for a pic...) (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as52-e.htm)

--

"MD-2 started as a simply scaled down FN FAL rifle (manufactured in Brasil under license as IMBEL LAR), but during the design time the FAL locking system (tilting block) was replaced by M16-type rotating bolt. The receiver design is, however, still very similar to FAL."

--

[GazB]

The SLR in my opinion was not heavy,it was long but not heavy.

It is long and very heavy... compared to my AK... but it is very well balanced and the stock design and layout were excellent. It is very comfortable to fire... more comfortable than my Mosin Nagant Carbines (Model 1938 and Model 1944).

The AK 74 has a very efective muzzle brake. It reduces recoil to a great extent. I'm sure that it is possible to have an accurate group with an AK74 on automatic, but it is not practical to fire on auto the whole time.

The AK-74 doesn't have a burst fire option... they were firing both long and short bursts and the barrels were not moving up or down. Apart from the noise and smoke and minor flashes they might not have been firing at all... except for the visible tracer rounds that looked like a laser beam into the brush.

Single aimed shots remain the most effective means of dropping the target, and for reducing ammo expenditure.

That is what the SVD is for...
I think they were practising anti ambush procedures.

[Royal]

Without a bipod or better still a tripod there is no such thing. Automatic fire is necessary for room/trench clearing, but controlled it ain't.

I have seen soldiers firing bursts of fire at targets from AK-74s with impacts close enough to be called controlled at 100m or so. In fact when fitted with the under barrel grenade launchers the rifle barely appears to move during firing.

I can fire accurate bursts with an L85 or an M16/M4 - the point is that I don't need to...

The right/left handed issue is true, although I've never met a left handed soldier who couldn't be trained to shoot (a rifle) right handed.

Firing around cover you will miss not beign able to swap shoulders. When I hunt I usually prefer to fire from concealment (cover is not necessary as they don't shoot back). With an SKS or an AK I can do that... even with an AR-15 I can do that and I can certainly do that with my SLR. So instead of exposing my chest and head firing around the left side of a wall I just expose my shoulder and the side of my head to my left eye.

The firing round corners issue is a complete canard. No one snap shooting wrong handed round a corner is shooting accurately unless they are expending SF levels of ammunition in training. A properly organised unit in an OBUA/MOUT environment will have mutually supporting arcs of fire. It is a cowboy habit and an indication of poor command and control.

The weight issue is actually an advantage as it keeps a short weapon well seated in the shoulder and thus aids the accuracy of what is already a very accurate weapon.

Most conventional rifles are front heavy for a reason. Rear heavy rifles tend to flip up under recoil.

True

With underbarrel grenade launchers the AK series is considered by some to be too front heavy so bullpup models were developed especially to balance this out.

Bollocks - bullpups were developed to give air-assualt and armoured troops a weapon that was short enough to handle in confined spaces and still had a long enough barrel for accuracy to 300m and beyond.

Because of this with a grenade launcher on it I would expect the SA-80 would be better handling than the SLR,

It is.

but otherwise it is just too damn heavy for what it is supposed to be.

Debateable. It is not significantly heavier than any other assualt rifle in general service in western armies.

quote]with an SLR and I never liked the fact that the rear sight comes off with the receiver cover.

It doesn't.

A late friend of mine I used to enjoy hunting with was in the territorials and thought the Steyr AUG was a neat rabbit gun but he wouldn't use it on game bigger than a goat if he ever could take it hunting.

As a hunter myself I wouldn't use intermediate rounds on deer sized game except at very close range.

I don't hunt any type of fluffy animal with an assualt rifle (with the exception of a wild boar I shot once with an M16A2 - it went down with a single shot to the head and tasted great), so I and the worlds militaries frankly don't give a f**k what you think about bunny hunting with assualt rifles.

[martinexsquaddie]

once went bunny bashing with a FAL
didn't hit any fireing bursts but sure made them run :lol:
although got told off for using an air rifle with out permission rofl

[oldsoak]

I trust you were suitable penitent :lol:

[Chris1]

next week on channel 5, bunny hunting with assualt rifles....
I can see it taking off!

[martinexsquaddie]

er same "nature reserve" buried about 5 kilo's of home made plastique :oops:
thats 12 and half pounds of explosives for those who live in the states.
It was a huge bang when that lot went off :(
went back there a few years later theres still a pond there with a little plaque that this crater appeared mysteriously one night :roll:
now kids listen up cooking up home made plastic is very very stupid that was using the paperback version of the anarachists cookbook.
:backhand:

[Fox2]

er same "nature reserve" buried about 5 kilo's of home made plastique :oops:
thats 12 and half pounds of explosives for those who live in the states.
It was a huge bang when that lot went off :(
went back there a few years later theres still a pond there with a little plaque that this crater appeared mysteriously one night :roll:
now kids listen up cooking up home made plastic is very very stupid that was using the paperback version of the anarachists cookbook.
:backhand:

Uh...what?

home made plastique in a nature reserve...went off....there's a pond there now...with some more plastique....that caused a crater to appear mysteriously....kids with anarchists cookbooks...



My dear friends on the other side of the Atlantic,

Say no to drugs.

Love, your pal, me.

[Michael RVR]

I had a mate that went kangaroo hunting with AUG's while up in Northern Territory with NORFORCE... noone out there to check on them out there ;)

Roo supposedly tasted fantastic :D

[oldsoak]

I had a mate that went kangaroo hunting with AUG's while up in Northern Territory with NORFORCE... noone out there to check on them out there ;)

Roo supposedly tasted fantastic :D

- it does ! whether its from Bi-Lo or Red Ochre or aquired via other means I love the the meat. A local supermarket had it over here ( UK ) but removed it because of crying tree huggers protesting outside. Boo ! :bash:
rgds

[Eviscerator]

i'm trying to recreate the SA80 as accurately as possible for Operation Flashpoint, and could do with some information regarding it, if you could help me out i'd be very grateful.

mainly the problem is the SUSAT, i know that the optics is basically a triangular post as the aim point, and i also know that it lights up at night due to the trilux, but i don't know how it lights up, i'm guessing the clear area in the middle of the post is the part that lights up, confirmation of this would be nice, also i've heard that it turns red at night, if this is true what type of red? maroon? blood red? orange-red? does it gradually shift from clear to red, or does it just suddenly appear?

Also, detailed specs of the AG36 and SA80 A2 K/C series would really help, as information on these is extremely hard to come by.

[Royal]

The post is almost paralel (slightly wider at the bottom) with a triangular tip, coming up from the bottom centre of the sight picture.

The trilux illuminates a line up the centre of the post, going from a pale (almost white) colour to a fairly bright orange as the brightness is adjusted.

[Eviscerator]

cheers for the info, does the sight automatically compensate for darkness or does the soldier have to manually 'turn the trilux on' and then increase the brightness?

[Royal]

Manualy. There's a small knurled knob on the right side of the sight mounting.

[Flagg]

I had a mate that went kangaroo hunting with AUG's while up in Northern Territory with NORFORCE... noone out there to check on them out there

Roo supposedly tasted fantastic

Michael RVR....is NORFORCE the RFSU for the Northern Territory?

[Michael RVR]

Michael RVR....is NORFORCE the RFSU for the Northern Territory?

Actually its a larger area than that, but yes. ;)

The role of NORFORCE is to conduct surveillance and reconnaissance in the Northern Territory and Western Australia north of the local government boundary for the Kimberley region.

This area of operation covers nearly one quarter of Australia's land mass - 1.8 million square kilometres - stretching from Broome in the west to the Gulf of Carpentaria in the east.
http://www.defence.gov.au/discover/fs004.cfm

http://www.defence.gov.au/discover/images/U1320d_th.jpg
NORFORCE Central Squadron soldiers recon an area near their headquarters at Mataranka.[/quote]

[GazB]

Bollocks - bullpups were developed to give air-assualt and armoured troops a weapon that was short enough to handle in confined spaces and still had a long enough barrel for accuracy to 300m and beyond.


Errr... take it in context. I meant they wanted to replace the standard rifle with a grenade launcher because the combination was too front heavy. Their solution was to adopt bullpup (ie rear heavy) designs with underbarrel grenade launchers so they would be better balanced.
And by the way the earliest Bullpup design I have seen was a bolt action and is more than 100 years old now... ie predates the aircraft or armoured vehicles.

Debateable. It is not significantly heavier than any other assualt rifle in general service in western armies.

At about 5kgs it is almost 2kgs heavier than most other modern weapons.

GazB wrote:
quote]with an SLR and I never liked the fact that the rear sight comes off with the receiver cover.


It doesn't.


You are misquoting me, I was replying to someone else... please reread the posts above. (The reply to my correction includes a photo of the FN FAL).

so I and the worlds militaries frankly don't give a f**k what you think about bunny hunting with assualt rifles.

Actually My friend though the Steyr was a good rabbit gun... I haven't fired one. Excellent reading skills BTW.

If the .223 is considered inhumainely weak in deer prehaps it is not a great calibre for humans.

[Royal]

Errr... take it in context. I meant they wanted to replace the standard rifle with a grenade launcher because the combination was too front heavy. Their solution was to adopt bullpup (ie rear heavy) designs with underbarrel grenade launchers so they would be better balanced.

They wanted to replace a rifle with a grenade launcher? I don't think so...

At about 5kgs it is almost 2kgs heavier than most other modern weapons.

4.13 Kg actually (with SUSAT). All of 270g heavier than the FAMAS and AUG (but with a better sight) and about 400g heavier than a C7 or a G36. Not exactly two kilos is it?

with an SLR and I never liked the fact that the rear sight comes off with the receiver cover.
It doesn't.

You are misquoting me, I was replying to someone else... please reread the posts above. (The reply to my correction includes a photo of the FN FAL).

Does it matter who you were replying to?

It doesn't.

If the .223 is considered inhumainely weak in deer prehaps it is not a great calibre for humans.

Every army in the western world seems to disagree with you. But hey, you're the expert...

[Mark Sman]

.223 is considered inhumainely weak in deer

It is not. Maybe for mule deer or northern deer which are BIG.

In the South it is plenty.

Remember the three most important factors in wound effectiveness.

1. Shot placement
2. Shot placement
and what is three again, oh thats right
3. Shot placement

Bah I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The UK never should have canned the Lee-Enfield. p-)

[Scrim]

Ballistic wrote
The SLR is a damn fine weapon, heavy but I found it acurate and easy to use. Had one hell of a kick for a young Cadet to fire (many years ago ) But I thoroughly enjoyed handling it.


I was going to say the same thing. I almost cried like a little bitch when I was a young Cadet using the SLR!! I remember that like it was yesterday.
Fired a few blanks with the SA80 when we (USMC) were in 29 Palms with the Royal Marines, and we monkey ****ed each others weapons for a while. Felt good to me, but never actually shot it for real.(Great sling too ;) )

[martinexsquaddie]

should have tried the lee enfield NO4 now that had a kick :(
although if you see a nutter with a no5 jungle carbine basically a cut down NO4 avoid at all cost :oops:. That thing is a beast brought tears to my eyes the one and only time I fired it.

[Mark Sman]

The looney tunes by me have been cutting down Mosin Nagant M-44s to a 14 inch barrel, then they weld on a 2 inch flash supressor so it is legal. Costs about $150. They've been loading hot rounds too.

First time I fired it at the range I thought I had a chamber explosion. Dust fell from the overhead, the bench vibreted with every round. Even with the flash supressor it throws about a foot of flame, and you can actually feel heat while in firing position.

Oddly kick is not that much more than a regular M-44.

The noise was a deep loud bark that you could feel inside your body when you were standing to the sides. My buddy just mounted a pistol scope on his in place of the iron sights for Boar hunting. He put the folding pig sticker back on too. Just in case he needs to resort to the spirit of the bayonet.

[GazB]

They wanted to replace a rifle with a grenade launcher? I don't think so...


No. The AK-74 and AKM with grenade launchers are found to be too front heavy to be comfortable. The solution the Russian arms manufacurers put forward to solve the front heavy problem is to fit under barrel grenade launchers to bullpup rifles, like the Groza and the A-91. Being bullpups their centre of gravity is near the rear so the extra weight of the underbarrel grenade launcher near the front of the weapons makes the centre of gravity near the middle of the weapon (instead of well forward for teh Ak-74 with grenade launcher or well back like a bullpup rifle without a grenade launcher fitted).

Clear?

Does it matter who you were replying to?

It doesn't.

It does when the part you quote me as saying was me quoting the guy I was replying to. I kinda think I know where the rear sight on an FN FAL is... I have owned one for about 8 years now.

Every army in the western world seems to disagree with you. But hey, you're the expert...

Errr, not me, My government. I can kill deer with a .22lr. It is more to do with shot placement than the power of the round.

It is not. Maybe for mule deer or northern deer which are BIG.


You are welcome to contact the New Zealand Police and ask them to correct their Firearm rule book. Until they change it I am sticking to the law.

should have tried the lee enfield NO4 now that had a kick
although if you see a nutter with a no5 jungle carbine basically a cut down NO4 avoid at all cost . That thing is a beast brought tears to my eyes the one and only time I fired it.


Hahahaha. I have a nice No-4... made by Savage in the US. It has a very mild recoil. The No-5 which I am currently looking after for a friend recoils a bit more but not to fierce. It recoils about the same as my short barrel pump action shotgun when firing slugs. My Mosin Nagant 1938 carbine has a much greater kick, not to mention the 2ltr coke bottle sized muzzle flash.

Oddly kick is not that much more than a regular M-44.


I think much of the feel of the recoil from the Mosin Nagants is the flat metal buttplate. The curved buttplate of the FN FAL is much more comfortable in comparison.

[martinexsquaddie]

possibly because your used to old full bore rifles
compared to the SA80 and the L96 the kick is really really bad :roll:

[hoganshero]

Gotta ask. What exactly is the difference between an assault rifle and a "battle rifle"? For that matter what is a "battle rifle".

[martinexsquaddie]

well you have opened a real can of worms there rofl
basically a "battle rifle" is a rifle fireing Full bore ammo like a SVD a FN or a M14.
while an assualt rifle fires intermediate ammo such as soviet 7.26 5.56 nato or 5.45mm.
Though the Sa80 and some other 5.56mm rifles blur this being capable of accuracy over 600m.

[GazB]

The strictist definition is that a battle rifle uses full power rifle ammo, while an assault rifle uses intermediate power ammo AND is capable of full automatic fire or burst fire AND is intended for use like a SMG and a Battle Rifle.
Ie an SKS is not considered an assault rifle. An M16A2 with single and 3 round burst capability is an assault rifle. An RPK is considered a LMG as it is used for longer range suppressive fire and not intended to be used like a SMG (though it can be used as a battle rifle).

Personally I prefer a looser definition and think that any rifle that tries to combine the virtues of a Rifle and a Submachinegun is an assault rifle... this still excludes the SKS for example, but adds the FN FAL, the G3 and many other weapons that are intended as standard infantry weapons (as opposed to weapons with bipods intended as LMGs).

[Tony Williams]

This is the start of the first chapter of 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition' by Max Popenker and myself (due to be published later this year):

"The term "assault rifle" is in common use to describe modern military rifles. However, there is no officially agreed definition of the term, so this book must necessarily commence by defining its subject.

The broadest definition likely to secure agreement is along the lines of: "a standard infantry rifle with selective fire". The phrase "standard infantry rifle" excludes such weapons as sub-machine guns (SMGs) or light machine guns (LMGs). Compared with a traditional SMG, an assault rifle fires more powerful cartridges, has a longer barrel and a much longer range. Compared with an LMG (which typically uses the same ammunition), it is lighter and is normally hand-held rather than fired from a bipod; it is also always magazine-fed rather than (sometimes) belt-fed. "Selective fire" means that it has the option of fully automatic fire; the weapon keeps firing for as long as the trigger is pressed, or the ammunition runs out. This therefore excludes those self-loading rifles which only offer semi-automatic fire (i.e. they fire only one shot for each press of the trigger) although it would include burst-fire weapons which fire a predetermined number of rounds – usually two or three – for each press of the trigger.

This broad definition has been used as the basis for this book. However, it has to be admitted that it is not perfect for three reasons. First, some weapons have been made in both semi-automatic and selective fire versions, with some nations choosing only the semi-auto version; for the sake of completeness, these have been included. Second, the term 'assault rifle' should arguably only be applied to those weapons which are capable of controlled fully-automatic fire from the shoulder. This would rule out those selective-fire rifles which chamber the traditional full-power (FP) 7.62 or 7.92 mm rifle and MG cartridges (currently, only the 7.62 x 51 NATO) because their recoil is too heavy to permit this: the muzzle rises rapidly under recoil so all shots after the first will tend to fly over the target. Using a narrower definition to specify "controlled automatic fire from the shoulder" would include only those weapons chambered for the less powerful 'intermediate' cartridges, so-called because they are intermediate in power between pistol / SMG and FP rifle rounds. However, some weapons have been made which can be chambered for either FP or intermediate rounds, so it has been decided (again for the sake of completeness) to include the FP rifles as well, while noting that they do not make satisfactory assault rifles. Finally, some very short-barrelled assault rifles have been produced to take over the role of the traditional SMG; these are also included, as apart from barrel length they are essentially the same weapons."

There is even less agreement over the term 'battle rifle'; I would use it to include any weapon issued as the standard infantry rifle. It would therefore include all assault rifles, plus semi-autos, bolt action etc.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Dutchman2]

I choose the FAL. It's havier and longer, but it will fire anytime. When our (Dutch) army was still issued with FAL's, we had a Nato shooting day with near 40 different rifles, MP's and pistols from all over the world, and the SA80 was proud to be the first rifle that jammed and never saw action again. Fortunatly, the Brit's took a second SA80 to the firing line, and guess: That rifle didn't wanted to cycle :D ! So the ther rest of the day everybody shot with a manual loaded SA80.
Only the AK-74, G3 and the FAL still fired at the end of the day.

Few years later in Germany, I was honoured to visit a normal British shooting training. In 2 or 3 hours, 4 different SA80 jammed. And that's only on a clean range!

So If I have too choose between a FAL and a SA80, I'll take the FAL. If I have to choose a battle rifle anyway, I'll take the G36.

Greets,

Roger

[Tony Williams]

The A2 versions of the SA80, rebuilt by HK and issued from 2001, are very different beasts from the A1s, and are as reliable as any other 5.56mm.

Tony Williams

[king_nothing100]

rumour had it they brough in the ban because too many squaddies were looking at buying civi 5.56 rifles :(

I think the main contrubuting factor was people shooting up primary schools with semi-autos and handguns.

[Royal]

The A2 versions of the SA80, rebuilt by HK and issued from 2001, are very different beasts from the A1s, and are as reliable as any other 5.56mm.

Tony Williams

You of course having fired them regularly....

[Tony Williams]

The A2 versions of the SA80, rebuilt by HK and issued from 2001, are very different beasts from the A1s, and are as reliable as any other 5.56mm.

Tony Williams

You of course having fired them regularly....

Nope - but I've heard from British soldiers in Iraq who have, and they are very pleased with the gun. For the full story of the SA80's problems and solutions, see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm

Tony Williams

[Royal]

Sorry. The dig was a tad unfair.

I've used the A2 (and defended it on here) - my dig was at someone who doesn't (hasn't?) served immersing themselves in the characteristics and capabilities of arms and ammunition...

[Tony Williams]

Sorry. The dig was a tad unfair.

I've used the A2 (and defended it on here) - my dig was at someone who doesn't (hasn't?) served immersing themselves in the characteristics and capabilities of arms and ammunition...

Why not? I think you will find that many of the great gun designers had no military experience. Hiram Maxim? John Browning? John Garand? (I'm not certain about Eugene Stoner). I will grant you Lewis and Kalashnikov (although he was a tanker, not infantry).

Tony Williams

[Uninen]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040429/capt.sge.lpa74.290404095013.photo00.default-384x270.jpg

I noted that talked here before about bullpups having grenade launchers, well.. there it is SA 80 with AG36.. ;)

And what comes problems, i suggest that you go to http://www.militaryvideos.net and download the "Norwegian firing range drills"...

Sad but true, in that video, firing a single magazine they have multiple feeding problems and "miss fires" and jamms.... :|

With SA 80.. it doesnt look good.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Unien wrote,
And what comes problems, i suggest that you go to http://www.militaryvideos.net and download the "Norwegian firing range drills"...

Sad but true, in that video, firing a single magazine they have multiple feeding problems and "miss fires" and jamms....

With SA 80.. it doesnt look good.

So on the basis of one weapon firing one magazine, in your 'professional opinion' the SA-80 doesn't 'look good'. :cantbeli:

1. Was the weapon an SA-80 or an SA-80A2?.
2. Have you ever fired the SA-80A2?.
3. Have you 'immersed yourself in the weapons characteristics' and
carried it day in, day out, in an operational enviroment?.
4. Are you speaking from first hand experience or second hand hearsay?.
5. Are you prepared to second guess someone who has professional experience with the weapon as to whether or not the weapon ' looks good' ?.

Tony williams wrote,
Why not? I think you will find that many of the great gun designers had no military experience. Hiram Maxim? John Browning? John Garand? (I'm not certain about Eugene Stoner). I will grant you Lewis and Kalashnikov (although he was a tanker, not infantry).


I don't understand your statement. Are you comparing yourself to some of histories greatest weapon designers?.

[Hydro]

Who's to say that SA80 wasn't using a ****e magazine? "Multiple feeding problems"? Could be a crappy mag, or some fool seated his rounds crappily. I've used the L85A1/L86A1, never operationally though. I've NEVER had a stoppage on the range while live firing, feed or otherwise. I've had a few problems with blank ammunition, but I gather most weapons aren't as reliable with blank ammo.

[D.E. Watters]

Why not? I think you will find that many of the great gun designers had no military experience. Hiram Maxim? John Browning? John Garand? (I'm not certain about Eugene Stoner). I will grant you Lewis and Kalashnikov (although he was a tanker, not infantry).


Stoner was an US Marine. However, he was in the aviation support trades, and did not see personal combat during WW2.

[Tony Williams]

Unien wrote,
Tony williams wrote,
Why not? I think you will find that many of the great gun designers had no military experience. Hiram Maxim? John Browning? John Garand? (I'm not certain about Eugene Stoner). I will grant you Lewis and Kalashnikov (although he was a tanker, not infantry).


I don't understand your statement. Are you comparing yourself to some of histories greatest weapon designers?.

I would have thought that my point was very obvious - that there is no necessary connection between military service and an interest in weapon design.

Tony Williams

[GazB]

that there is no necessary connection between military service and an interest in weapon design.


I would go a step further and suggest that there is no necessary connection between military service and weapon knowledge.

To suggest that just because I never served means I can know nothing about an SLR is rediculous. I have taken my SLR up mountains in weather the Local Territorials cancel exercises for, and I don't have to worry about all the bollocks a grunt has to go through and spend as much time using my rifle as I like. I probably get more shooting time than most soldiers. No I can't march for ****e, and I am never clean shaven. Does that mean I don't know anything about rifles or ballistics?
Many who actually have served don't have any interest at all in firearms... to suggest their opinion should be held above those of others is silly.

Obviously those who have served deserve respect, but it doesn't mean they know everything or are the only source of factual information.

[Uninen]

Who's to say that SA80 wasn't using a ****e magazine?
Nobody, but then again whith Valmet and Sako assault rifles ive used, i never had "a ****ty magazine".. IE those are made from good plastic and they wont bend and etc...
"Multiple feeding problems"?
You have seen the video right? There it really didnt work, and be as it may that the man firing the rifle was Norwegian, it seemed to me that it was the UK trooper that loaded the mag....
Could be a crappy mag, or some fool seated his rounds crappily.
Again, metallic magazines (that are of aluminium and not even steel which would be better...), not a good choise as they get bend and things like that unlike plastic magazines, in fact only problems ive ever had with plastic AK-style mags was once when mag got full of water and froze, in winter, after that it didnt feed... and also sometimes with very old mag, the bottom plate fell off if hit.
but I gather most weapons aren't as reliable with blank ammo.
Thats true, ive got personal experiences about this with Valmet KVKK LMG, the thing usually wont fire 5 rounds in a row with blanks... but with live ball rounds its realiable as hell.

[oldsoak]

The Sa80A2 is a lot better now that HK have had a good bash at it. Yes we have had problems with the previous version but the A2 has upped the game a bit.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Gazb wrote,
I would go a step further and suggest that there is no necessary connection between military service and weapon knowledge.

I agree with you in general. However, there are a number of examples on this forum I could use which prove a number of those who don't serve but do have an interest in firearms believe they know more than those who are serving and have first hand experience with the subject.

For example,
Perskiimon wrote about the Steyr AUG,
THE WORST assualt rifle I've ever fired in my life.

And he based that on,

However I did shoot it around 5-6 times in my life. Put a good 400 rounds through it.


Wow..... a 'good 400 rounds'. That 'experience' obviously qualifies him to say things like,
Not gonna work in the fire fight for me

Fair enough, his opinion.
For what its worth compared to the experience of the five or six, serving members of this forum from New Zealand, Australia, Ireland and Austria. Who've operated this weapon for extended periods in all kinds of climates whilst conducting all kinds of activities, including operations.

For another example read the 'SAS using Steyr AUG' thread.

There are many examples all over this site of people who've read a few books, watched the history channel, fired a few rounds on a range, etc and now believe they know more than anyone else about their chosen subject. Especially serving soldiers who have first hand experience on the subject.

I have taken my SLR up mountains in weather the Local Territorials cancel exercises for,

WOW.......I guess that makes you tougher than your local Territorials then doesn't it. ;)

I don't have to worry about all the bollocks a grunt has to go through and spend as much time using my rifle as I like. I probably get more shooting time than most soldiers.

Er....what 'bollocks' would that be? and how much shooting time do you get (so I can compare it to 'most soldiers').

Obviously those who have served deserve respect, but it doesn't mean they know everything or are the only source of factual information.

Of course those who have served don't know everything, nor are they necessarily experts or the only source of factual information.

However.

Those who have served/are serving have something those who haven't, usually don't.

Firsthand experience.

And there isn't a book written that will give you that.

[Uninen]

Unien wrote,
And what comes problems, i suggest that you go to http://www.militaryvideos.net and download the "Norwegian firing range drills"...

Sad but true, in that video, firing a single magazine they have multiple feeding problems and "miss fires" and jamms....

With SA 80.. it doesnt look good.

So on the basis of one weapon firing one magazine, in your 'professional opinion' the SA-80 doesn't 'look good'. :cantbeli:

1. Was the weapon an SA-80 or an SA-80A2?.
2. Have you ever fired the SA-80A2?.
3. Have you 'immersed yourself in the weapons characteristics' and
carried it day in, day out, in an operational enviroment?.
4. Are you speaking from first hand experience or second hand hearsay?.
5. Are you prepared to second guess someone who has professional experience with the weapon as to whether or not the weapon ' looks good' ?


What is your problem, get the video, the rifle jamms for different reasons about 4 times while shooting one clip.

And no, i have no had experience with SA 80, but with lots of other weapons i have like ZU-23-2 Rapid-Fire cannon, 12,7mm NSV HMG, Sako and Valmet assault rifles, M72 LAW and Valmet LMG:s... etc.....

And they have never malfunctioned on me, but this SA 80 fails even to function in firing range.....

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

uninen wrote,
What is your problem, get the video, the rifle jamms for different reasons about 4 times while shooting one clip.

And no, i have no had experience with SA 80, but with lots of other weapons i have like ZU-23-2 Rapid-Fire cannon, 12,7mm NSV HMG, Sako and Valmet assault rifles, M72 LAW and Valmet LMG:s... etc.....

And they have never malfunctioned on me, but this SA 80 fails even to function in firing range.....

I find it amusing that you can judge a family of weapons on the basis of a single weapon.
1. Are you saying all the weapon types you've used have performed flawlessly for every person who has ever operated them?.
2. If I fire a Valmet made rifle on a range and have four stoppages does that then prove that the family of weapons doesn't 'look good'?.
3.Are you basing your 'opinion' of the SA-80 on what you've heard/read about the original rifle or on the A2 version?.

Why don't you ask someone who has used it how reliable it is. Oh, but that would interfere with your pre-concieved bias, now wouldn't it?.

[Tony Williams]

First, I would like to make two things clear: I have no military experience, and my practical experience of shooting is limited to target shooting with rifles and pistols many years ago. OTOH I have had an interest in weapons and their design for many years, and have had the opportunity to examine and handle large numbers of them, principally at the MoD Pattern Room.

I would not pretend for a moment that my very limited experience in any way matches that of a soldier who has used his weapons regularly. I therefore always listen with attention when a soldier expresses a view about a weapon he knows well, particularly when he has used it extensively in combat - the acid test.

The most valuable evidence for me comes from soldiers who have extensive experience of using different weapons of the same type, and can compare their performance. However, few soldiers have this. And even of those who have, I do not necessarily accept their opinions (as opposed to facts) as gospel, because people's opinions differ. Some dislike bullpups on principle because they prefer the rather different handling of the traditional layout which they are used to. Others are understandably devoted to weapons they have trusted their lives to, and will hear no criticism of them. To give an example, most US soldiers who have used the M60 and M240 MGs reckon that the M240 is vastly superior. But I remember reading one vet stating that he preferred the M60 - because it was lighter to carry, and he was used to dealing with its 'foibles'.

So what I try to do is amass evidence from the widest variety of sources I can, giving particular emphasis to information from those with the best practical experience, in order to pull together a balanced view of a particular weapon. I put in my own personal opinions only where I have had a chance to handle the weapon in question - and then I only express a view on what it is like to handle, not on how good a military weapon it might be - a rather different matter.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Well said.

[GazB]

For example,
Perskiimon wrote about the Steyr AUG,
Quote:
THE WORST assualt rifle I've ever fired in my life.

<snip>Fair enough, his opinion.



He gave his opinion that he thought the AUG. He has actually fired it. As far as I am concerned his experience with different types of weapons means he has more hands on experience to judge than a book reader and hunter like myself.

now believe they know more than anyone else about their chosen subject. Especially serving soldiers who have first hand experience on the subject.


With respect are they actually doing that, or just sharing their thoughts and opinions?

A friend of mine thought the AUG wasn't very good... a rabbit gun he called it. He was in the Terrs. My brother on the other hand was in the Airforce and was using Sterling SMGs initially but then changed to AUGs and he thinks they are great. Accurate, Light, and harder hitting than a 9mm... and the ammo is lighter!!!

It really depends upon what you used before. Old Soldiers traditionally bemoan a change in weapons unless the new weapon is radically better in every way... and that doesn't happen much. (Could say the average Soviet conscript going from a 7.62 SMG to an AK might have had a surprise...)

WOW.......I guess that makes you tougher than your local Territorials then doesn't it.

No, it shows common sense on the part of the Terrs and the fact that I really don't like wild dogs that kill sheep in the high country.

Er....what 'bollocks' would that be? and how much shooting time do you get (so I can compare it to 'most soldiers').


The bollocks like all the tactics of modern warfare, fitness, and operational procedures and many of the other things a soldier has to know that I don't. Shooting time is about 30 hours a week. Probably half that on a range, though during hunting trips 90% of the time it is walking with a rifle rather than actual shooting, the other 15 hours a week is on farms on the weekend dealing to the small game problem we have down here.


Those who have served/are serving have something those who haven't, usually don't.

Firsthand experience.

And there isn't a book written that will give you that.

If I use a car every day does that necessarily make me a good car designer? Should I write books about cars? A serving member of a military force has first hand experience of the type of weapon he uses and some idea of how other weapons work/are stripped down, and plenty of first hand experience of what the weapons are for and tactics etc.

Remember he who learns from experience is a sore and unhappy man. He who learns from the experience of others is much better off.