Military Arms

[markm]

I'm not talking about automatic ones (kalashnikov - Spelling etc etc) but SA80 etc etc.

 

also

 

Do EU / US snipers use similar arms / optics to sporting rifle users?

[PaulABF]

You're not talking about automatic ones? Why mention the SA80 (actually it's now designated as the L85A2) then? It's fully automatic, same as the kalshnikov. Both have change levers to switch between semi-auto and automatic.

 

The L85A2 and indeed when it was the A1, has always been a remarkably accurate weapon due to it's low recoil and X4 sight. We as soldiers have a requirement to accurately engage enemy up to and including 300m and supreesss them from 300m +. The rifle does that in spades. Granted, most soldiers might not get a 1/4 inch grouping at 300m but we can drop a man sized enemy as that's what we are required to do.

[markm]

I see your point I suppose, I was told with a SA 80 you can fire a single shot and hit a barn door and a kalash will not hit the barn.

 

OK sorry Mr Picky "Are military arms accurate?"

 

Plus the second part of my post (not wanting an argument)

[tulkyuk]

British snipers use an Accuracy International rifle with a Scmidt and bender PMII scope on top - you can also buy and use the same rifle ( infact a mate of mine does)

[Wookie]

But it's a wee bit more pricey than some other target rifles!

[tulkyuk]

But it's a wee bit more pricey than some other target rifles!

 

Just a little, i belive he paid £5000 for his second hand

[starlight32]

Yes I have been looking my self at this particular place today as I going to have a bit of a change....

 

Some real yum stuff on here...

 

What you reckon guys?

 

Visit My Website

Edited June 4, 2008 by starlight32

[steyrman]

But it's a wee bit more pricey than some other target rifles!

 

Just a little, i belive he paid £5000 for his second hand

 

 

me too paul i would love a L96 but at £5000 i can dream for now

[Zapp]

You're not talking about automatic ones? Why mention the SA80 (actually it's now designated as the L85A2) then? It's fully automatic, same as the kalshnikov. Both have change levers to switch between semi-auto and automatic.

 

The L85A2 and indeed when it was the A1, has always been a remarkably accurate weapon due to it's low recoil and X4 sight. We as soldiers have a requirement to accurately engage enemy up to and including 300m and supreesss them from 300m +. The rifle does that in spades. Granted, most soldiers might not get a 1/4 inch grouping at 300m but we can drop a man sized enemy as that's what we are required to do.

 

 

I was on my Corps combat shooting team (ie using the L85A1 as opposed to target rifles) so I spent al lot of my time on the range with it and it is a very accurate rifle given that it is mass produced to non competition standards. The susat sight is a truly gleaming bit of kit - after using the L85 iron sights, getting hold of a susat equipped rifle made shooting a pretty much "point and click" affair.

 

Since AKs were mentioned, a lot of what is said about their lack of accuracy is a myth. Using single shots (I have had a go a couple of times), they arent too bad at all. A mate of mine who is an ex Para Reg officer and who is now working private security in Iraq has used them a lot and has no problems with their accuracy.

 

What you have to remember about AKs is who produced them, and who uses them. They either turn up in the hands of Russian and former Soviet state troops, whose infantry doctrine comprises "whack it on full auto and give it large", or you will see it being toted by warring militiamen who fire whole mags full auto from the hip while wearing a luminous green afro wig and a dress to make them "bulletproof". Neither styles is a recipe for acurrate shot placement.

 

ZB

[radio1ham]

well in my opinion the slr 7.62mm was the most reliable rifle

sa80 i think is only for close combat shooting as the slr7.62 mm was better by far at further ranges they should of stuck with it

as the sa80 well in iraq and the gulf war they were getting jammed up by the sand dust

as my mate told me

they are ****

even the lee enfield .303 knocks spots off the sa80 5.56mm even tho it was a much heavier rifle

anyway thats my opinion having fired all 3 of them i prefer the slr 7.62mm even the .22 conversion of the slr is better than the sa80

[Zapp]

well in my opinion the slr 7.62mm was the most reliable rifle

sa80 i think is only for close combat shooting as the slr7.62 mm was better by far at further ranges they should of stuck with it

as the sa80 well in iraq and the gulf war they were getting jammed up by the sand dust

as my mate told me

they are ****

even the lee enfield .303 knocks spots off the sa80 5.56mm even tho it was a much heavier rifle

anyway thats my opinion having fired all 3 of them i prefer the slr 7.62mm even the .22 conversion of the slr is better than the sa80

 

But the question was about accuracy, not reliability.

 

The A1 variant of the L85 (SA-80) was a bit of a nightmare for stoppages, especially if it got sight of dirt or grit, but I understand that the new A2 version is a big improvement (I never got to try it though).

 

The whole 7.62/5.56/.303 is something I think has been debated here in the past, and for what it is worth I agree that 7.62 is probably a better option. There was an article not nlong ago in the US press about how their troops hate the steel-cored 5.56 ammo they are issued because it tends to whiz straight through the target without causing instant atastrophic damage.

 

ZB

[Wookie]

But that's the whole point with smaller calibres... Well, two of them.

 

Think about it, 7.62 is large and heavy, so you are limited to what 200 rounds tops with it. Think back to the SLR days, how many mags did you get in a standard load? 5.56 is a smaller round, so you can carry more, which is nice. It's also the reason the Russians developed their 7.62 short round.

 

Also, 5.56 does tend to go through things. That wounds. If you wound someone it is going to both tie up a medic or two and also be a big blow psycologically to the rest of his squad. That in itself is a win:win.

 

Also, remember the other big point here. We're in bed with the US for just about everything military. They are the spine of NATO and had been using 5.56 since Viet Nam. Us standardising with their kit was going to happen one day

[PaulABF]

well in my opinion the slr 7.62mm was the most reliable rifle

sa80 i think is only for close combat shooting as the slr7.62 mm was better by far at further ranges they should of stuck with it

as the sa80 well in iraq and the gulf war they were getting jammed up by the sand dust

as my mate told me

they are ****

even the lee enfield .303 knocks spots off the sa80 5.56mm even tho it was a much heavier rifle

anyway thats my opinion having fired all 3 of them i prefer the slr 7.62mm even the .22 conversion of the slr is better than the sa80

 

I've fired all three rifles you mention - 303 was as a cadet I might add. SLR was a good, robust and very accurate weapon. L85A1 was accurate but an unreliable badly designed waste of money. The L85A2 I've used both in Iraq and Afganistan and I can't fault it at all. Never had a stoppage due to dust or sand (cleaning it helps there!) and it performed fantastically. the .22 conversion on the SLR might have been valuable as a transistion to full bore as a young recruit but it's not really going to cut the mustard against the Taliban when compared to the L85 (either variant)!

[Lloyd90]

Theres a video on youtube showing just how effective the 5.56 is. Because its a smaller bullet its moves faster and unlike the heavier 7.56 it is much more accurate.

 

When the end of the round hits something because it is smaller the front end slows down, the back end is still in a way going immenselyfast, I think it said that that causes the back end to sort of tumble over the front and create this tumble effect, this in turn does MASSIVE damage to the person hit and it rips through them as tumbling.

 

Think he also said no one has taken a decent hit from one in the proper area and lived, those things are badass man,

 

Also when I went to the AFCO I recieved alot of infomation some of which was about the LA80. When introduced into the british armed forces the marksmanship test had to be completely redesigned because this new gun was so good it was too easy! :blink:

[bob300w]

But that's the whole point with smaller calibres... Well, two of them.

 

Think about it, 7.62 is large and heavy, so you are limited to what 200 rounds tops with it. Think back to the SLR days, how many mags did you get in a standard load? 5.56 is a smaller round, so you can carry more, which is nice. It's also the reason the Russians developed their 7.62 short round.

 

Also, 5.56 does tend to go through things. That wounds. If you wound someone it is going to both tie up a medic or two and also be a big blow psycologically to the rest of his squad. That in itself is a win:win.

 

Also, remember the other big point here. We're in bed with the US for just about everything military. They are the spine of NATO and had been using 5.56 since Viet Nam. Us standardising with their kit was going to happen one day

Off topic a bit, but you had me wondering exactly who was and who was not in NATO with this post, if anyone else is wondering, here's a list of all 26 countries, one or two surprised me;

 

http://www.nato.int/STRUCTUR/countries.htm

[Wookie]

I see what you mean. A lot of old Warsaw Pact countries in there now.

[highseas]

Yes I have been looking my self at this particular place today as I going to have a bit of a change....

 

Some real yum stuff on here...

 

What you reckon guys?

 

Visit My Website

 

you see that rifle that the fellow is holding in the top corner of the screen well that is the rifle i shot my first fox with

get your self up hear and have a look in real freindly shop with a couple of ranges and more guns than is on the web site :blink:

[BSA Shaun]

Wasn't it said that if you shot more than 3 in quick succession from the AK you would end up shooting 747's!!

 

In single shot it was fairly accurate I believe.

 

As for military accuracy, a lot of it depends on the person behind it!

 

There are shed loads of highly accurate weapons accross many miltary factions:

 

PSG1

Accuracy International

M40

M82A1

M24

 

 

The list goes on.......

[Zapp]

Also, 5.56 does tend to go through things. That wounds. If you wound someone it is going to both tie up a medic or two and also be a big blow psycologically to the rest of his squad. That in itself is a win:win.

 

Not quite - the objections to the round I refer to are from experiences in the current combat zones where such doctrine is irrelevant (predominantly Iraq).

 

The people who are being shot with these dont fight in squads, have medics or worry too much about their wounded in the way a conventional army would. Add to this the fact that an awful lot of the fighting is happening at very, very close range (anything from 100m down to pretty much arms length in some cases), so the round is going so fast it cannot tumble or impart its energy effectively. The US news article I read mentioned insurgents who had sustained multiple 5.56mm hits at 20-40m and yet continued to fight for considerable periods of time.

 

Next time my chum who is in Iraq gets back I will ask him for his take on this.

 

ZB

[Salop Matt]

I recall seeing a tv show once it was an american police, camera, action, type thing where a police officer unloaded a 9mm pistol at a chap at a cars lengh and scored 8 hits centre body mass and the bloke was still running round !

 

The SA80 was designed short for NI as alot of it was cross street or within a buildings and the legth of the SLR was always a issue for swinging round in buildings.

The 5.56 as already said was to create casultys.The 7.62 M14 is a very highly accurate whepon loved by marksmen and snipers world wide and most of the Millitary folk i work with love the M14 and say it still holds its own today despite being a old whepon.

 

The 5.56 rounds dont penetrate much in regard to walls and trees so in the situation of being pined down by anyone behind cover you would want the penatration to hand that the 5.56 dosent offer. Our troops should have a larger range of whepons availble these days !

 

But in answer to the question yes modern millitary whepons are very acurate. Its the person behind it that counts. :blink:

[Traztaz]

A post close to my heart, being a serving soldier and a hunter I have seen all sides of the coin.

I predominantly use a .308 to hunt , 7.62 mm, used both the .303 as a cadet ,and the SLR as a soldier and now the SA80 or riflr 5.56 which ever way you want to see it!

The smaller calibers are in my mind too small to deal with humans , I have served on 9 op tours in all conflicts from Granby onwards, multiples in theaters.

The yanks, with whom I am quite pally(Thoes that dont engage me!!) have had/are having re thoughts about the 5.56 munition.As said previously there have been many many post op reports of gunmen being hit multiple times with 5.56 and still being able to function(IE NOT DEAD).

This is not acceptable given the scuicide bomber threat.

A suggestion from the Americans was to investigate new recoil friendly rounds ( apparently thr 7.62 recoils too harshly for new shooters) and they are looking favorably at the .260 which funnily enough I am about to rebarrle my .308 to..................... makes you think eh?

[sandy22]

..............The yanks........... have had/are having re thoughts about the 5.56 munition................. and they are looking favorably at the .260..................... makes you think eh?

 

I thought they were looking at the 6.8SPC. IMHO if you compare that to the .280 British it'll make you think too.

[Wookie]

Are they just going to do a straight upgrade of M4 then? And, if the 7.62 is a little harsh for them, why don't they just chop the casing down and use a short version like in the AK? if nothing else, getting new ammo in the field would be a bit easier...

[Trussman]

Off topic a bit, but you had me wondering exactly who was and who was not in NATO with this post, if anyone else is wondering, here's a list of all 26 countries, one or two surprised me;

 

http://www.nato.int/STRUCTUR/countries.htm

[/Qoute]

 

The French only rejoined Nato recently I seem to recall. The French FAMAS Assault rifle is chambered in 5.56. It will use standard SS109 ammuntition, but the French had to go and invent their own ammo. The FAMAS will only acheive its full potential accuracy wise with the 5.56 French service type. I think this was due to the rifts between Nato and the French

[MC]

Back on topic,

 

The military weapon is as accurate as it needs to be, it only needs to hit a human size target and the FMJ round is designed to wound not kill.

 

The Lee Enfield is a highly accurate rifle especially at long range. My Dad had one converted to 7.62 when .303 ammunition was hard to come by. He used it to great success at 9 - 1200 yards.

 

The 5.56 may be more accurate at close range and lighter to carry and use but for any distance then the 7.62 is supreme. That is why it is still in use long after the 5.56 was meant to replace it.

 

The standard for NATO ammunition is 3 1/4" groups at 100yards. the issue ammo that I use for target shooting is L42A1 sniper issue which is considerably better than that.

 

My tightest group being 8 shot 3" at 500yards. Something that I have strived to repeat.

 

The Chinese AK47 has a small angled slot at the muzzle to prevent flip and it is said that you can empty a magazine on full auto into a gallon can sized target at close range.

 

The AI is a fantastic piece of kit and something that I considered before buying my RPA Quadlock.