SA80

[lurcherboy]

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/pw/pw_sa80.htm

 

 

 

LB

[Devilishdave]

It is now a very good accurate and reliable bit of kit 50 times more reliable than the old SA80 and several times more reliable than M16. By more reliable I am refering to mean time between failures.

 

Dave

[A.McCormick]

It is Still a **** weapon I Use it. although it is much more reliable now. it does not have the hitting power of the good old SLR. when they originaly came in they were meant to be the caliber of 6.5mm but the government wanted to be the same as america and so used 5.56. but i know people complain that its about maiming and not killing, but what a load of ***********.

thanx Alex

[dunganick]

it makes sense to use the same callibre as the biggest force in the world. however the round is not sufficient to cycle a round once it has been submerged in mud or what ever our forces do to them.

 

the other reason they like the 223 is that its less than lethal.

 

i will probably get shouted down for this.....but here it goes ne way

 

let me explain, if you kill a man on the opposing army it takes no one to remove him, one man is dead and so the killing carries on.

 

if you hurt him, it takes two men to carry him off the field (which most forces will do these days) it then takes some doctors to try and save him and you end up removing about 4 people from the battle for a period of time. it makes sense unfortuantly.

 

i could never see the forces in this country using the 6.5, i infact would hate to see them use it, i love that round to bits and putting it in a sa80 would be a crime. i believe that finland or one of the hurdy gurdy countries use the 6.5 as their national round. but we can forgive them becuase they gave us sako

[jonno 357]

Well there you have it from General Nick

 

Jonno

[Devilishdave]

There was also talk about the next NATO weapon coming in at .17 cal. Not sure whether that is centre fire or HMR

 

The SA80A2 is not **** in comparison to any other assault rifle on the market including the H+K G36 (the best of the shelf assault rifle). As has been stated 5.56mm is not designed to kill in fact you could not even get it licensed to shoot roe dear in England!! It is designed so that you can maim and take two stretcher-bearers off of the battlefield as well as the casualty . The rifleman can carry significantly more 5.56 than he can 7.62 thus giving the user more suppressive fire to keep the enemies heads down whilst you carry out an assault. after all the enemy does not want to be shot byany bullets!!

 

Most assault rifles are used at less than 100m so long range capability is not as important as some people may think.

 

Personally I would want to be on the right end of a silenced RPA .50 on ops but unfortunately my job no longer involves me doing business at that level.

 

The army is currently trailing some serious sniper rifles at the moment in 7.62, 338 and .50.

 

Dave

[BTMS]

Nick,

 

Spot on

 

Bren gun too accurate Did not spread too much. Fire power over some ones head sure does keep them down and no return

 

GPMG

 

Snipers 7.62 adapted Lee Enfield Mk 4

7.62 NATO fitted Russian guns but theres did not

 

Have a safe one

 

No previous experience only what I have heard

 

Brian

[Sergeant]

As for 5.56 not being sufficient to cycle after being submerged in mud, that didnt stop the AK74 ( no i didnt swap the numbers around, there is such a thing)

I do think the A2 version is better, but i find the revised cocking handle and stronger mainsprings make it more aukward to cock?

I would say it is on a par with other assult rifles now, but i wouldnt go as far as to say it is better, and in my opinion, the HK is the best

[Devilishdave]

Having spoken To H+Ks senior salesman to the UK at length on the subject (he was just back from a trial in Tobago on the then new G36) he was of the opinion that the A2 was at the least as reliable if not more so than the G 36!!

 

His opinion was based on fact and not opinion and that is good enough for me. The lack of faults reported to my tradesmen also support the level of reliability the A2 is producing.

 

The A2 can be burried in sand, shaken out the n lightly oiled then it will empty the mag without a stopage which is good going in my book

 

Dave

[dunganick]

well they had to get it right eventually

[Gemini]

Yes, and it ONLY cost the British tax payer £500,000,000 (that’s half a BILLION ££s) to do it, and that’s without the initial development costs.

We would have been better off buying the M16 in the first place and saved the money we wasted on the SA80 to build and equip a few hospitals.

The SA80 also uses a slow twist and a heavy bullet, which makes the bullet very unstable in flight. Which is why it causes more horrific injuries than deaths, because it tumbles on impact.

G.M.

[Devilishdave]

1/2 a billion sounds like a lot but it is only 1/50th of one years defence budget! SA80 has been in service for 20 years now so over that period it has only taken up 1/1000th of the Deffence budget over that period of time. It does not mater what they should have done we have the A2 now and it is a very good bit of kit.

 

Dave

[deadeye ive]

Dave

 

Can you please explain why the change to using optics as opposed to iron sights,because if i knocked my hunting rifle (fitted with scope)lets say then i would loose all confidence in it and not be happy until i checked the zero. Yes i know the optics on a SA80 are'nt mounted on scope rings but how have the designers overcome this.

Also with rapid firing what is the shelf life of one of these barrels before they become worn out and do you think now that they have got this gun virtually right do you think our own SAS will adopt it over the M16?

Correct me if i'm wrong but are'nt Heckler &koch now owned by British Areospace?

 

 

 

Thanks in advance

 

Ive

[Devilishdave]

H+K are owned by Royal Ordnance, which is owned by BAE Systems so yes you are quite correct.

 

We have a device called a collimator; when you zero you then fit the collimator to the barrel using a spigot you then look threw the sight and you will see a reading. This reading is the relationship between the Axis of the bore and the optical axis of the sight.

 

If your SUSAT takes a knock or you loose confidence in it you can put it on to the collimator and ensure it is still aligned properly. If it is not adjust on to the setting that you know to be correct for your rifle.

 

The SUSAT also comes with emergency Battle sights, which is a simple peep sight and blade arrangement that is permanently fitted to the top out side of the Sight. In my experience these sights are never zeroed. All you would do is aim at something that will show splash mark on the battlefield. Note the relationship between where you aimed and the fall of shot then aim off accordingly. That method can of course be used with the optical sight if it is not broken.

 

The SUSAT is not a new thing with the SA80 "Teeth arms" have always had them. It is 4x Mag and is quite a good bit of kit although I believe that is to be upgraded soon to entail more detailed Graticule patterns rather than the simple post pointer Reticule that is currently fitted

 

Barrel life is dependant on user maintenance and rate of fire (heat cycles) and not purely on the amount of rounds fired I have known of rifles that have fired estimated 100K and only suffered from metallic fouling which can be removed. The condemning tolerance is if a .553mm bore plug cant pass then the barrel is not fit for issue and on the wear side of things it is determined by eye or if the user reports a noticeable loss in accuracy. I have had this a few times and on test firing found the fault to be the users error.

 

Barrels tend to get a knock and subsequently bent rather than get shot out.

 

My best guess with our special forces is that they will adopt the A2 or the G36 but their will be significant resistance to change from the M16 by the old and bold because they are fully conversant with the M16 and their drills and skills with it are slick. Yes there is no reason why they cant transfer those drills and skills to the A2 but most of the guys used the A1 before they went special forces hence they have no confidence in it because it was unreliable in any conditions other than perfect range conditions. I have seen the results of extensive testing A2 against M16 in various guises, The test was done in the sandy environment of Kuwait and the A2 came out head and shoulders above.

 

Dave

Edited September 24, 2005 by Devilishdave

[deadeye ive]

The lack of faults reported to my tradesmen also support the level of reliability the A2 is producing.

Much obliged Dave.

 

You sound to me that you are in the Royal Engineers

 

 

 

Cheers Ive

[Devilishdave]

Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

We fix military equipment (vehicles weapons etc) the Engineers build and demolish bridges and the likes. More civil engineering

 

Dave

[deadeye ive]

:*) REME ,thats what i meant Dave ,,,,,,apologies for my ignorance as i did'nt realise that they were seperate units :*)

 

 

Ive

[Gemini]

http://www.tmhbs.com/comment_sa80.asp

G.M.

[Devilishdave]

I have used it in the desert as have my Battalion and no significant faults or stopages were reported over a 9 month period so I can only comment from experiance.

 

The Commanding officers of the royal marines was reprimanded for slating the A2 his troops wanted M16 for no reason other than because the SAS were still using them at the time!!

 

Think of it this way if the army gets any new weapon the SAS will still use the kit they have until they get trained up on the new kit. Often they dont have the time or inclination to change if they are happy with what they have got.

 

It seams strange that it tends to be people who have not used the SA80A2 such as these journalists that tend to slate it! Yet the majority of people I talk to that have been on ops with it are happy

 

Dave