Weekend at RAF St. Athens

[Sergeant]

Heres a few pics of me at the weekend, there only low quality though. See if you can name the weapons.

Edited May 24, 2005 by Sergeant

[Sergeant]

Another view

[Sergeant]

And the last one.

[dunganick]

looks like an l98 or maybe sa80 :thumbs:

 

and some old service rifles maybe a lee number 8 not sure, never been in the forces

Edited May 24, 2005 by dunganick

[paulos]

l85a1's? lee enfield no. 8 .22lr's?

 

about all i know about service guns, used a cadet version of the enfield in .22lr so thats where i got my guess from :thumbs:

[Ozo]

the sa-80 is either the a1(cocking handle) or more likley the single shot cadet version due to no susat(unless ur in the reme's!). the rifles look a bit short for the lee enfields, maybe the .22 rifles i see the cadets on the ranges with??

Edited May 24, 2005 by Ozo

[Elma Fud]

St Athans, brings back memories.

 

How are the Valley Commando (VC's) night's now a days.

 

It's been a few years since I pulled a grot there. :thumbs:

[Wookie]

If it's a single shot (and judging from the lack of flash suppressor it is), then it's an L98 A1 GP. Ah, that brings back memories... Cadets not pulling the cocking handle back far enough, then pushing it forward and jamming a live round. or, to break it up a bit, pulling it back so hard the cocking handle comes off in their hand, also leaving a live round up the spout... Those were the days!

 

As for the old 'uns... No idea mate! Before my time!

 

Wookie

[Sergeant]

Yep, they are L98A1 and Enfield No.8 in .22lr.

 

Cadets not pulling the cocking handle back far enough, then pushing it forward and jamming a live round.

Your telling me! I was lucky that weekend, not a single jam, although while supervising the less experienced I had to help sort out quite a few.

[Wookie]

It's really quite funny... They try and make a rifle squaddie-proof and that's a difficult trick to pull off. Then you let it loose around cadets and they come up with a whole new raft of ways to break the damn thing!

 

I reckon I used to spend about a 1/4 of my time on shooting days fixing things that the younger cadets had knackered. There's only so many times you can tell them what to do, after that, you just have to try and not look worried whenever they pick something dangerous up!

 

Wookie

 

(Left the cadets as a F/Sgt Weapons Instructor)

[Ozo]

wats the sa-80 like to shoot with iron sights?? ive only ever shot with the susat. :thumbs:

[pigeon master]

It’s the worst rifle in the world, or not far off. It’s the biggest mistake the UK MOD ever made.

 

Totally pathetic in hot sandy conditions and without a susat, its not that good after 200 yards. Fire a few hundred rounds through it and you’re about done if you need to use it after that. We should have followed the yanks and gone for the M16.

 

The PM

[Catamong]

I'm told that the AK 47 is a lot more reliable than the M16..??

[ratsix]

many years ago when i was a cadet i managed to pull the working actions out on the range at folkestone

while another lad managed to get the pull throgh stuck it turned out to be for the slr lifted the wrong cleaning kit

happy happy days

[dunganick]

its true, but this is more down to the round it uses, the 'ak47' uses some sort of 7.62 variant, might be a 7.62x45 nato, but im not certain, and this round has a much higher recoil and also uses more powder to move the lead, so both the recoil and the extra gas, make it cycle alot better,

 

this means it dosent take a small piece of dust to upset it

 

good old fasioned brute force

Edited May 30, 2005 by dunganick

[ernyha]

I think it is recognised throughout the world that the AK47 is the best military rifle ever produced. Hundreds of thousands are still in use worldwide and when you think that the '47 denotes the year it was invented that is a good indication of just how good it is.

[Sergeant]

Well, to throw a spanner in the works the AK74 is a AK47 rechambered in 5.56 which is still in use in some armies (cecz republic) (sp?) and is still 100% reliable.

wats the sa-80 like to shoot with iron sights??

seeing that the L98 is basically an sa80 its scariliy accurate at 25yds in the right hands and still pretty good at 100yds, just mind you eye / glasses on the recoil, they'r quite hard!!

[Wookie]

AK using 7.62x45 nato? Not likely mate!

 

The SA80 is getting better, but it is still a rubbish weapon. I think it started life in the 50s or 60 as the Lee Enfield E4 (or something) which was a really advanced infantry weapon. It looked the same as the SA80, but was a lot nicer (had wood instead of the crappy plastic) and came in a very odd caliber, something like 4.5mm. By all accounts it was nice to shoot and very accurate, but was considered too far ahead of its time and so got binned.

 

The iron sights are a waste of space. The foresight is big enough that at 300m it completely covers a man-sized target, limiting the effective range to about 100 m. However, as it was brought in for use with vehicle crews and people would would not normally be expected to use them, it works... That said, I'd prefer to have the german equivilent, which is an MP5k PDW, which will also hit out to 100m, but which is smaller and a lot easier to shoot. It's also got a wicked silencer option which I like!

 

Right, I've sounded off enough. Any inaccuracies, let me know... That part of my life is behind me and I keep forgetting stuff!

 

Wookie

[Devilishdave]

It’s the worst rifle in the world, or not far off. It’s the biggest mistake the UK MOD ever made.

 

Totally pathetic in hot sandy conditions and without a susat, its not that good after 200 yards. Fire a few hundred rounds through it and you’re about done if you need to use it after that. We should have followed the yanks and gone for the M16.

 

The PM

L85 & L86 A2 are good weapons systems and are significantly better than the M16, the only reason the Marines wanted the M16 is because that’s what the SAS had been using (and they wanted to be special) before the A2 came in to service. To be completely fair if maintained correctly as per the letter of the pamphlet the A1 was a fairly accurate and reliable weapon.

 

The A2 seldom breaks down for any reason. The A2 can be buried in the sand with the working parts held to the rear, pull it out of the sand shake out loose sand spray lightly with oil and it will empty 30rds in the direction of the enemy in 2.3 secs. Don’t know why you would want to burry your personal weapon though!!

 

I was chatting to one of the guys on the trials and development team at H+K,) who modified the SA80 to A2 build) He was just back from Tobago doing trials on the H+K G36and he reckoned the A2 is slightly more reliable than the G36 which is their big hitter in modern assault weapon fields.

 

The SA80 fitted with SUSAT is the most accurate assault weapon on any battlefield bar none. Even with open sights groups of 50mm at 100m can be achieved with relative ease if the marksmanship principals are applied.

 

Dave

[Wookie]

The issue I have with the way that the SA80 and the M4A1/M16 both turne dout is their accuracy.

 

How relevent is accuracy at long range for today's modern armed forces? The US have just admitted that the 5.56 round is rubbish past 100m (no surprise there) when used by the average soldier, so what is the point of having a rifle that, by design, is inherently accurate?

 

If I was shooting past this sort of range, I'd want something that would carry more energy down range, probably a 7.62 or something similar, whereas if I was after something for 100m or less, I'd want something that was easier to shoot faster and [possibly] easier to conceal, i.e. a 9mm SMG.

 

It seems to me that, yues, we now have a decent weapons system, but it is like everything else that we have created: neither one thing nor the other. A bit like the TOrnado really. It's great in ground attack, but rubbish for air to air. And that is why the Eurofighter is going to be outclassed too.

 

Wookie

[Devilishdave]

5.56 is the standard NATO round so we are making the best of what we have! The thinking behind the round is that you can carry twice as much ammo than 7.62 for the same weight and an injured soldier takes three people off of the battle field where as a dead soldier only takes one man from the battle field!

 

 

There is even talk of using a .17 round to magnify the benefits further.

 

As to it being no use at over 100m I hope the Americans are talking for them selves. Even the worst of British soldiers must achieve hits at up to 300m or they cant pass their mandatory annual personal weapons test. Personally I would not want to be hit by one even at 800m, which is the maximum range you would intend to shoot with the LSW or L86. and 800m is what the SUSAT is calibrated

to.

 

The 5.56 or .223 has a fairly flat trajectory out to 300 M only deviating by 4 inchs

 

Dave

Edited June 1, 2005 by ernyha

[Wookie]

Dave,

 

It was on a [non-classified] report that I saw on the web somewhere that listed just about every bit of kit that the US used and how the soldiers rated it after the initial stages of GW II. The biggest slamming was handed out to the M92F, which got a lot of stick for being rubbish in a combat situation. No surprise there as a decent police pistol is not the best thing for the military. They should go back to .45 ACP and have done with it.

 

As for accuracy out to 800m... I would not like to try that with 5.56. The round is just too little to predict where a breeze will push it over that sort of distance.

 

One last thing on the subject... Did anyone see a program on the telly a few months ago about the M16 V. the AK47 in Viet Nam?

 

That just about sums up my feelings on the matter.

 

Wookie

[Devilishdave]

Yeh I had a go of a 92F a while ago and thought it was **** even in comparison to the standard browning. The whole action of the thing felt wrong to me but I suppose it is what you get used to. I found the Glock 17 to be head and shoulders above the Berretta.

 

I know what you are saying about shooting at 800m with 5.56 it is not for the inexperienced but it can be done.

 

What soldiers want is the enemy dead so they are no longer a threat to them but the bigger picture shows that wounded are more beneficial to you.

 

In the Falklands the Browning .50 was the most feared weapon on the battlefield and that was purely from a psychological point of view the 7.62 killed more people but when the .50 opened up every one took cover

 

Dave

[paulos]

i dont know a great deal about military weapons, but surely the 5.56 is going to prove far more lethal than a 7.62 when used in full auto, simply because it doesnt heat the barrels as quickly and the recoil is less, creating tighter groups from when fired in military shooting stances? i might be being too simplistic here though, so please correct me if im wrong!

[dunganick]

7.62 isnt going as fast as the 5.56 so the 5.56 produces more heat that way, however the 7.62 has a greater surface area, and uses more powder to send it on its way

 

i would imagine it would be precious little difference, besides felt recoil, which would be slightly larger ion the 7.62

 

or thats the way i would think it works, but im not a millitary person