Printable View
The LMG version of the rifle, the L86 was always a pig-in-a-poke and really was never going to be anything else. It is little known that one of my former bosses, Lt Col Andy Xxxxxx was head of the trial-to-acceptance team for it and it never passed anything except for the interchangeability of 80% of components criteria! He wouldn't sign it off. But we're not talking about the LSW.
When the SA80 ( Individual weapon (I.W.) and light support weapon (L.S.W.)) were first on the drawing board, and the first mock ups were put in the hands of some troops. It was a very different type of weapon. Firing from the open bolt when automatic fire, closed bolt when on single shot, inclined bolt, and obviously a different caliber....
The conversation of the AR180s was just to trial the practicalities of a bullpup weapon ( aperantly it was "NEVER" intended to copy and past the working parts to make the new gun).... if you believe what is reported in the book
The 1st weapons that were made for the troop trial were well made by people with an interest in getting some government work. After that many parts were out sourced to small machine shops and quality and reliability went out the window...
. I would say reliability went in cycles from initially Good through to poor, depending on who was making the parts at the time, at one point we were changing 150 firing pins a month ( basic training regiment very high use)
faults also went up with the move to Nottingham! ( Different maker for the pressed steel parts)
We had about half a dozen common faults that would really affect reliability, all easy fixes and no weapon was out of use for longer than 1 hour for repair... only some of these faults have been " designed out" with the A2 ( plastic bits will always crack and fall off when given to the infantry! DO OTHER COUNTRY'S SOLDIERS EAT THE PLASTIC BITS?????? it's a common problem in the British army)
The user has been better educated in the care and use of the weapon, during the first Gulf war we were told to dry clean and use oil sparingly ( as we did with the L1A1) ....now with the A2 we have been shown it needs more oil....and it works.....
As a Yank this has been a very interesting thread. Made me go buy the book, which will get here in another week.
Thought it worth mentioning, that it took the better part of a decade to get the M16 right from the 1962 version.
1) Improved magazine (1963)
2) Needed to change out the firing pin for a lighter assembly (1963)
3) The bolt release needed to be beefed up slightly (1964)
4) The bolt needed to have the heat treatment changed. (1965)
5) The gas tube had to be changed from regular to stainless steel. (1966)
6) Because of the need to use a different powder, the buffer weight needed to be raised (1966)
7) The chamber (1968) and bore (1972) needed to be chrome lined. Bore for life, chamber for functioning with the dirty W846 powder.
8) The requirement to remove the calcium carbonate from the powder to limit the fouling. (1969)
All these minor changes made what was a functionally not all that great rifle into a pretty decent design that is still with us as a front line rifle 55 years after introduction.
I'm not really qualified to say F10, I'm sure Peter, Mike and Skippy can give you a definitive answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
My personal opinion, for what it's worth, the concept of designing a weapon system that's "all this be to all men" is, and always will be flawed logic.
We have seen this time and time again, the General Dynamics F111 (cancelled Navy variant), the F35 (finally getting there) are two examples of this folly from the world of aviation.
The basic idea of the bullpup, having a compact weapon with a barrel that's longer than would be the case with a conventional layout, makes good common sense to me as a layman.
As Peter said, the L86 was a pig in a poke and it should have been cancelled and replaced early on.
Unfortunately the whole programme was wrapped up in lawyers of all pervasive Political and civil service meddling right off the blocks... As we all know these people run their own agenda...
For anyone reading Skippy's post #102 below is a link to a pic of the Individual weapon a lot of folk confuse this with the ES2 (which is a bull pup design but probably the only similarity)
http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures...d_4_85_IW.html
Forgot to mention its on page 46-47 of the book "an Ilustrated guide to Rifles and Sub Machine Guns" ( Major Frederick Myatt M.C.) have had my copy since I was a kid, the days when a beret was worn with cap badge above the left eye and not the left ear.......
We can discuss back and forth forever the good the bad and the ugly of the SA80 but I think the UK purchasing AR's for some of their units and not giving them the new 80 tells the real story.
Maybe someone can explain the logic in this, but doubt it.
Some specialist units will NEVER accept what the regular force has. It's all to do with their inferred or aural air of superiority. I could go on but I won't..........
It's same in the US military as well......
I would guess that U.K. special forces are still trained to use the SA80 rifle; I would be surprised if they are not.
You could maybe argue that some UK SF have a choice of what to use and some prefer a HK to an AR.