I like the SA80

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

How very true, the M16 was a disater when first introduced into Vietnam, many brave young men paid with their lives because of basic design flaws and catastrophic miss management by both the manufacturer and the D.O.D, it's inial problems were quite frankly appalling.

---

mrclark..first the M16 was never a disaster, the Stoner design was superb and let me explain what went wrong when the first issued were used in Vietnam.

When developed the design was ground breaking and the gun functioned more than adequately. Some one for some unknown reason decide to use a new powder for the 5.56 which was very clean burning and need very little maintenance.

The some brilliant upper echelon army officer(s) made the decision to change to a powder (probably out of cost) which was dirty but none of those incompetent idiots bothered to inform the instructors to tell the foot soldier or anyone else that the gun now needed regular maintenance. The forward assist was also a big help for those who didn't clean it like it should be.

No one to the best of my knowledge was every reprimanded over their failure to communicate the gun now needed cleaning so incompetence from the higher level cost those service men their lives.

Unlike the SA 80 it sure didn't take 30 years to correct the problem and since then the sale of Millions of AR platforms removes any doubt about quality and performance. Again your UK DOD is purchasing AR platforms for units in the British military so it makes me wonder why that would occur if they had real faith in the new SA? How many countries have adopted the SA model for their military? How many countries have adopted a AR for their military..that tells the entire story.

The SA80 variant in the Gulf War sucked and that is giving it the benefit of the doubt. Good soldiers using poor equipment. Gee that sounds like our soldiers here in Canada but at least we us a AR.

I read H&K modified the SA to function better at a cost of 400 pounds per gun, that is around 520.00 USD. You can purchase a new AR in the US for under 700.0 if you look.

I hope that we can meet for a beer should I ever decide to return to England on a holiday.

Yeah, but it's alright now, that's the point. You can't let a few failures and reversals over a couple of decades put you off, that's just not British!
L85A2...... walop!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

mrclark..first the M16 was never a disaster, the Stoner design was superb and let me explain what went wrong when the first issued were used in Vietnam.

When developed the design was ground breaking and the gun functioned more than adequately. Some one for some unknown reason decide to use a new powder for the 5.56 which was very clean burning and need very little maintenance.

The some brilliant upper echelon army officer(s) made the decision to change to a powder (probably out of cost) which was dirty but none of those incompetent idiots bothered to inform the instructors to tell the foot soldier or anyone else that the gun now needed regular maintenance. The forward assist was also a big help for those who didn't clean it like it should be.

No one to the best of my knowledge was every reprimanded over their failure to communicate the gun now needed cleaning so incompetence from the higher level cost those service men their lives.

Unlike the SA 80 it sure didn't take 30 years to correct the problem and since then the sale of Millions of AR platforms removes any doubt about quality and performance. Again your UK DOD is purchasing AR platforms for units in the British military so it makes me wonder why that would occur if they had real faith in the new SA? How many countries have adopted the SA model for their military? How many countries have adopted a AR for their military..that tells the entire story.

The SA80 variant in the Gulf War sucked and that is giving it the benefit of the doubt. Good soldiers using poor equipment. Gee that sounds like our soldiers here in Canada but at least we us a AR.

I read H&K modified the SA to function better at a cost of 400 pounds per gun, that is around 520.00 USD. You can purchase a new AR in the US for under 700.0 if you look.

I hope that we can meet for a beer should I ever decide to return to England on a holiday.

---

I never turn down the offer of a beer!

Without this turning into a bun fight, two points, as initially issued in quantity in Vietnam, the M16A1 did have serous issues with corrosion and subsequent regular stoppages, until the barrels and chambers were chromium lined and a new buffer provided to "cool" the cyclic rate. As you say, some of these issues were exsaporated by the change of ammo spec, lack of cleaning kits and training issues etc.

These issues occured 10 years after the first .223 AR platforms were trialed and some might say the rifle didn't reach maturity until the A2 version was fielded in 84/85... So another 18 odd years.


Point being (and I am a big fan of Stoners AR), it took time and money to get right, just like the poor old L85...

I am used to AR platforms (admittedly in Straight Pull and .22 semi auto) and love the instinctive controls of AR15's, so I am not knocking what is without doubt a very fine rifle.

Second, I had the lucky opportunity to go through the L85 history "wall" at Warminster with a chap who knows the platform inside out and has used it extensively in combat, he walked me through its evolution all the way to Afghan issue spec, pointing out the changes and he was unshakeable in his opinion on the A2 as a very good war fighting tool indeed...

His opinion...

Anyway, I look forward to continuing the discussion over 1 or 8 pints one day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blurrededge

Yeah, but it's alright now, that's the point. You can't let a few failures and reversals over a couple of decades put you off, that's just not British!
L85A2...... walop!

---

Andy McNab famous in the UK said IIRC "a Rolls Royce in the SA80 albeit a prototype Rolls Royce". LOL

Good to see people can have a real "go around" and still be respectful and friends even when the other part for sure is WRONG.:lol::lol::lol:

I would love to have even a old SA80 in my safe but that will never happen and this weekend will shoot a AR in a military shoot and hope it holds up as well as last time. Of course I know it won't disappoint me, hopefully I won't disappoint it?:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blurrededge

And as for the SA80 not converting to left hand ejection, well that always seemed sensible in a battle rifle to me, better they all eject the same side I wouldn't want to pick up some south paws rifle in the confusion and have bunch of brass filling up my ear hole! But as I say I'm just a civvie, what do I know.

---

Its a dumb idea in a bullpup as leftys can't use it. And seeing as us leftys make up at least 10% of the population, your better off having them able to use the weapon effectively than the "risk" of picking up some south paws rifle (which doesn't happen). Austria, Australia, and Israel all have ambidextrous capable bullpups and I have never heard of a issue related to the rifles being used left handed (other than if the rifle is in a right handed configuration).

All good fun, have a good shoot, just wish we in the UK could be trusted with such things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

when one of your now none existent car companies attempted to reverse engineer a Honda Accord with total failure.

---

Are you talking about the Triumph Acclaim which I have not heard much criticism of in the past? It was assembled in the U.K. and did have some U.K. made parts, I believe.

Worst thing BL ever did F10 was to end the relationship with Honda.

Had that relationship been further developed and explored, perhaps Japanese production technology, business management and determination "might" have turned things around.

As it was, a mix of Government fiddling and a series of asset stripping sales finally sank the ship for good in 2005..

Although I believe BMW still own the trade name Rover, so you never know!

So from that article that is linked above it looks like the SA80 was adopted so that RSAF Enfield would have a full order book when the government was trying to flog it off:

Quote:

---

Given that the order book at RSAF Enfield needed to be full in order for the Government to be able to sell it off at a good price to the Private Sector, is it any wonder that they found that they had met the majority of the requirements set out in the GSR, with barely a footnote to say that any areas of concern would be sorted out in the near future? Next, the ITDU completed their Trial No. 35/83 titled 'The Final Evaluation of Small Arms for the 80s to meet GSR 3518 (1983)' where they concluded that during "all activities the IW proved itself to be a robust, reliable weapon that suffered from few stoppages."

---

Quote:

---

"It came as no surprise to me that the soldiers in the Gulf should have had these problems, since it was reported to me, by a person involved in the recording of the 1985 trials, that the SA80 had been submitted to the standard sand test three times and each time it failed, miserably. To that person's knowledge, it was never re-submitted after the last failure and, quite clearly, no work had been done since to solve that particular and most significant shortcoming."24

---

So who actually designed the thing?