I like the SA80

It's funny how things work out sometimes!
I've just recently finished watching the latest batch of YouTube videos from the Forgotten Weapons series on the SA80 and it's development. From the XL60 series of Enfield Weapon Systems right up to the current L85A2 and just touching on the new HKA3 upper receiver development. I'd reccomend watching the vids if you haven't already they're pretty good with info along the lines of what's in the book "The last Enfield" which gets a plug in another video from the series. He gets the chance to do a little shooting of an EWS in 4.85 and an A2 down at Shrivenham and the slow motion footage is interesting stuff.
I also recently and purely coincidentally had the extremely good fortune of putting two 30rd mags of 5.56 through a semi-auto only L98A2 SA80 and I must say I loved it, what a joy to shoot, with little felt recoil, well compared to .303 or .308 that I normally shoot anyway, admittedly it's the only semi auto centrefire rifle I've shot so.......
With iron sights fitted, which isn't my preferred way to shoot I turned in a really good group at 300yds, what a rifle, made me look good! It did leave me thinking why can't I have one of these, bloody hell, not fair.
I've never served in the military and have no experience of this rifle in service conditions, I'm purely a civilian shooter and firearm enthusiast but I watched 3 of these rifles on the range shoot hundreds of rounds all day without any stoppages other than needing a quick turn of the gas plug due to fouling. If I could, I'd have one of these A2s tomorrow in semi auto, with a nice optic and happily shoot targets all day long with it.
I also noticed it was an 87 dated Enfield made rifle too, which was apt I thought and that's why I posted my observations here.

There's no doubt whatsoever that the first rifles were a pig in a poke but the A2 has earned its stripes. I was fortunate enough to see the trials that corrected most of the faults and be there when the A2 was trialed at Warminster. No complaints now I feel. But I do wish those that really should know better STILL say that H&K improived it. H&K titivated it while they were incorporating the modifications designed and developed here but put into one big upgrade programme by H&K.

Is the U.K. Government/MOD obliged to use H&K for all future upgrades and refurbishment work to the SA80, Peter, or could another suitably qualified company take on the work, perhaps a British or American company?

The answer to the Q you ask is commercially sensitive so I think that I will leave it at that

Boggles the mind the Brits could design such a POS as the SA80 and have serious doubts the new version is loved by end users. Hundred of millions of pounds on a gun that possibly is acceptable to a civilian shooter on range day. I wonder what the total cost has been since conception.

I still think they can't be fired comfortably from the left shoulder and see the Royal Marines that guard the Trident have gone to a AR platform that is described as being a "more powerful" firearm?? Both 5.56 and maybe the use of a heavier projectile is considered to be more powerful?? That sounds like it was written by a politician.

Volumes have been written about this failure and I think the quote I post below does a decent job of summing up a poor design and anything but a favourite for those who used it.

"after the most careful preparation, of those whom I observed, not one managed to complete the CQB course without at least one stoppage and some had repeated stoppages. Some 50% of these appeared to be magazine related and a further 30% may have been caused by the ingress of dirt. What happens in the Gulf, happens in Wales, too; and there is not too much sand flying about in Sennebridge. None, in point of fact."23

Indeed, the problems encountered with the use of these weapons in desert or sandy conditions, far from being new ones, had been apparent at the beginning of 1987, with a internal Army document outlining a 'sand ingress problem', as well as the various User and Troop Trials from 1981 onwards.

"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

A report, entitled 'Equipment Performance (SA80) During Operation Granby (the Gulf War)', undertaken by the Land Systems Evaluation Team (LANDSET) after the conflict had finished, was scathing in its criticism of the weapon system.

The cocking handle was on the right-hand side, along with its ejection to the right means that the weapon has to be fired from right shoulder, problematical for left-handed shooters, as well as causing problems while firing from left of cover.
Weight – an SA80, fully loaded with SUSAT is just 80g lighter than the L1A1.
Balance problems – the bullpup design along with the position of the SUSAT sight, the use made of stamped sheet steel for the main body and nylon for the pistol grip and fore-grip makes the weapon butt-heavy, a factor that exacerbates the high recoil when firing on automatic.
High-sighting plane – the firer has to expose more of him or herself to fire over cover.
Hard trigger pull – has an impact on accuracy.
The position of selector switch and magazine release catch on the left-side of the weapon but away from the pistol grip means the firer could loose target acquisition if he needs to change magazine or the rate of fire. Also, the magazine release catch could be accidentally pressed when carried against the chest.
The sling cannot be used as an aid to shooting.
The shoulder-butt strap was configured to sit too high when the LSW was in the shoulder and served no useful purpose.
The lack of a changeable barrel and belt-feed option on the LSW might limit its sustained fire capability.

Additional early problems included:

The discovery that the weapon could fire if dropped muzzle first onto a hard surface with the safety off from more than three metres.
The rate of fire was between 50 and 100 rounds per minute less than expected.
The LSW occasionally ejected a case into the firer's face and magazines were difficult to fit when the bolt was closed.17
Concern that use of the SUSAT would lead to the infantryman loosing track of the 'bigger picture' and ignoring dangers on the edge of their peripheral vision.18

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_SA80.html

Well written article.

Should have gone to the Tavor the moment it was adopted by the IDF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

Should have gone to the Tavor

---

I REALLY don't like the Tavor though...glad I don't need to carry one of those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I REALLY don't like the Tavor though...glad I don't need to carry one of those.

---

They take a while to get used to, my son has one (X95) and personally prefer a AR but it is a great gun and functions flawlessly. I think they are worth the $,$$$.$$.

I have a couple guys here that can't get theirs to group under a pie plate...the barrel varies in it's internal tolerances. Strange that...you might wonder how I found that out. Anyway, this isn't about Tavor...

Not to try and hi-jack this, but the Tavor needs a hex nut to disassemble it sufficient to really give it a decent cleaning. You cannot get to all the bits you need to clean with the no tool field strip. Any weight distribution issues with the L85A2 exist with the Tavor.

Notice the Israeli army has been replacing the M16 rifles with it for about 15 years (started in 2002 and was supposed to be compete by 2006) and the completion date...now it is 2018. Some how for the past 12 years the final change over date of 2006 has kept moving out while the Israeli army went form the M16A1 based units to the M4 like carbines. Maybe the changeover will happen, but it seems to me it is a commercial venture that is not quite up to the big time but makes money, so it sees some light use. Sorry, needs to be said.

back to the SA80. Sure wish we could have gotten some of the (proposed) self loading commercial rifles of the late 1980s over here (US) or even some of the L98A2 self loading rifles today. Might not be the worlds best rifle, but it has always had a certain appeal, being kind of the son of the No 9 rifle (EM2). Likely the last UK MOD designed rifle in our lifetime.

I wonder if seriously...we should just start a Tavor thread? I do have a couple of points I'd expound on and we seem to have more happening...we don't want to split this thread too badly? Maybe I'll find a spot to start it?

Sounds like a plan Jim... Might I just point out while the poor old L85 takes yet another beating, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I know a few people who have extensive front line combat experience with the A2 and thy aren't complaining, quite the opposite in fact.

It's far from perfect with regard to egronomics (to a civvy like me), but that's only an issue if you aren't familiar with the piece.

Yes, it has had a long and very troubled history, an abject lesson on how not to procure a service firearm but...

The fact of the matter is, it's here, reliable and very capable in trained hands.

As long as HK are building new barrels, receivers etc and it's still being updated, I see no point in replacing the L85A2 and it's potential A3 offshoot until a new calibre is selected by NATO.

Enfield 303T. You REALLY ought to read thread 2 again - and again and when you have, answer these simple questions
When was the last time you fired the A2?
Have you seen one in the flesh?
Where can I read your technical reports relating to your trials on the A2 rifle, the subject of this thread

As for the comments on the SUSAT sight......... I've never heard that one before, from ANYONE.

Having been amongst it since it was introduced AND at the start of the A2 version, I agree that I'm probably not in the best position co comment about it. There will be others better qualified...................

Chipping in............the early problems have been well sorted, and since Op Herrick started, the weapon platform is as good as any out there in 5.56.

All weapons develop issues if they are not cleaned, whether its desert/jungle or Sennybridge as we all know too well who have served.

I'm afraid I have to support the rifle for what is is, and does, on a daily basis, and from my findings as one who shoots it regularly and listens to the word on the street, it has proved itself in theatre.

All findings by the lads were listened to throughout the dark days, and effective amendments made very quickly. Good sound weapon left or right handed these days.;)

Adding to that, we used to debrief those returning from ops regarding their weapons and there were very few adverse comments about the rifle. The GPMG was greatest thing that ever invented of course. And when others speak of the old A1 rifles faults (and we've had the A2 for 14 or so years now don't forget.....) they ought to remember that the old AR16/M16's had their troubles to start with too. Yep.......... I was there when we got the first issues as was my late colleague, Major Maurice Fogwell - who conducted the UK/Aust/NZ jungle warfare trials.

Anyone remember the introduction of the L1A1 rifle too? I do - and recall the sharp cocking handle slide slicing two deep gouges out of your left hand. And having to unbreech and breech up the barrel at Base workshop level just to change a defective gas cylinder

I spose people will be spouting on about the SA80 A1 faults for ever now, pity really, they should make an effort to keep up to date with there firearms knowledge, all the info is out there.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Adding to that, we used to debrief those returning from ops regarding their weapons and there were very few adverse comments about the rifle. The GPMG was greatest thing that ever invented of course. And when others speak of the old A1 rifles faults (and we've had the A2 for 14 or so years now don't forget.....) they ought to remember that the old AR16/M16's had their troubles to start with too. Yep.......... I was there when we got the first issues as was my late colleague, Major Maurice Fogwell - who conducted the UK/Aust/NZ jungle warfare trials.

Anyone remember the introduction of the L1A1 rifle too? I do - and recall the sharp cocking handle slide slicing two deep gouges out of your left hand. And having to unbreech and breech up the barrel at Base workshop level just to change a defective gas cylinder

---

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.

Blurredge,
It wouldn't take much for a conversion of a Ruger 10/22 action and barrel IMHO unless someone knows of someone already doing it!!?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the way the SA80 is designed it has certain advantages over other bull-pup rifle designs? Is anyone able to confirm this, please, and if correct explain what the advantages are.

That's an idea Gil, I could see that working quite well, perhaps a business opportunity for someone out there. To be honest though, personally I'd only want the real deal in 5.56 semi auto or nothing, I'm a bolt gun man really and although I have owned some fancy .22 semi autos in my time, just for a bit of fun! I've ended up rejecting the lot of 'em for my No8 which outshoots them all, at least the semis I've owned anyway.
I know it's tired old drum to beat but it's a shame we can't own these centre fire semis as it's a very different style of shooting to what I'm used to, I was getting pretty good at settling the foresight back on target after recoil recovery and by the end of the second mag my speed was pretty good too. I got a real taste for trying out fast and accurate. Hey ho nevermind, back to slow and accurate instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Enfield 303T. You REALLY ought to read thread 2 again - and again and when you have, answer these simple questions
When was the last time you fired the A2?
Have you seen one in the flesh?
Where can I read your technical reports relating to your trials on the A2 rifle, the subject of this thread

As for the comments on the SUSAT sight......... I've never heard that one before, from ANYONE.

Having been amongst it since it was introduced AND at the start of the A2 version, I agree that I'm probably not in the best position co comment about it. There will be others better qualified...................

---

Peter with all due respect you REALLY should admit the entire project was a disaster from the word go. It was the era in the UK where little of anything mechanical was any good. Isn't the development of the SA80 around when one of your now none existent car companies attempted to reverse engineer a Honda Accord with total failure.

So after the better part of 30 years they now have a 2 model that seems to be OK. Wow 30 years, those who allowed this to happen should collectively bow their heads in shame. They have now put lipstick on a pig when reality is they could have purchased a AR that had been in service for the better part of 20 years and reliable. Egg on the face even more now as the UK is purchasing AR platforms for some of it members, to me that is the icing on the cake.

IIRC around 800 million has been spent on development and procurement, what a unbelievable waste of taxpayers money.

(I will address mrclark303 in a direct answer about his thoughts on the AR)

My son spent a couple weeks in Vietnam with a retired Royal Marine Sgt. who hated the SA80. I was always educated to listen to a Sgt. as they are noted for telling the truth where his officer is only interested in furthering their career so rarely speak evil on anything that might damage their future.

If I ever get back to the UK would still buy you a beer and we can have a friendly discussion on this matter.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

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:



So who actually designed the thing?

---

Do you think Lucas the Prince of Darkness was involved?:yikes:

Well, the Lee Metford was adopted with a black-powder .303 cartridge in 1888. Thirty years later, at the end of the "First Great Unpleasantness" what was all the go?

The SMLE, STILL in .303, albeit the high-velocity Mk7 round, but still basically the same action and cartridge it started out with. There was a mind-boggling series of redesigns, tweaks and doctrinal changes in those thirty years. Not to forget a bewildering array of "upgraded" older-pattern rifles, to make up the required numbers.

Scroll through another thirty years, (and another Great Unpleasantness), and there we see the sons and grandsons of the "original" users, STILL clutching a rifle (or carbine) that would be instantly understood and appreciated by the lads of 1888, and within another two years, off to ANOTHER war in North Asia with much the same gear. And let’s also not forget the wonderful L-42 series that just about had to be beaten from the hands of its users, to field a replacement, not THAT many years ago.

And in the "other" corner, large chunks of the "Red" Army STILL carry and use a direct, lineal, descendant of Mikhael Kalashnikovs "agricultural" little "attitude adjuster". Seventy years, and counting!

And, speaking of "geriatric" equipment / systems:

There's this: The Army found a Browning M2 .50 caliber still shooting perfectly after 90 years - Business Insider

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

There's this:

---

Those old things... Sort of anti climactic though, I'd take 'er out and warm it up for them. I can still "Struggle" through headspacing and timing one of those guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

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

---

Yes, in my opinion Honda were a very good business partner to B.L. and I've not heard much criticism of the Triumph Acclaim, on reliability grounds, over the years.

enfield303t, have you served in or with U.K. armed forces over the last 30 years? Is this how you formed your opinion of the SA80 rifle, from first hand experience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Yes, in my opinion Honda were a very good business partner to B.L. and I've not heard much criticism of the Triumph Acclaim, on reliability grounds, over the years.

enfield303t, have you served in or with U.K. armed forces over the last 30 years? Is this how you formed your opinion of the SA80 rifle, from first hand experience?

---

Never served in any UK force did a couple years in the Saskatchewan Dragoons (armoured) but my attendance was about as often as you will see a whooping crane. Had to attend a min. of one parade a year to keep my status as a DCRA shooter which entitled me to lots of free stuff (transportation/lodging/food/competitions) and all the ammo I wanted to use. Also able to draw a FN C1 which was a great gun IMO.

Was accepted into the USMC in 1962 and all went well till I was told with what they were offering I had to renounce my Canadian citizenship and immediately apply for US citizenship. That came about two months before I was to report to San Diego and it was a deal breaker.

Have formed my opinion from reading volumes on troubles from the start of the SA80 and always found it interesting that it was defended by the hierarchy. It is well know that your gov't is purchasing AR's for special units and considering how reliable they are why keep pouring money into a gun that really doesn't live up to expectations. A bull pup is a good gun for CQB but Colt builds a Commando model that is perfect in size/weight and not a bull pup. As before if you want a bull pup go with a Tavor it is a better gun.

Then my son took a trip the Vietnam/Cambodia/Thailand last year and spent the better part of three weeks with a retired Royal Marine Sgt. That Sgt. just confirmed what my son and I thought, the SA80 was a inferior firearm and he hated it. From what I gathered from my son he didn't have a single nice thing to say about it.

I understand it is tough to admit you built a bit of a dud compared to what was available from a different maker but even Ford accepted the Edsel was a huge mistake and dumped it after 4 years. There is a article on how H&K was paid 400 pounds/gun to do mods and that makes no sense when you consider what a AR will cost.

There is so often a lack of common sense and that "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitude when stepping back and taking a thoughtful approach would be the way to go. Now your military are stuck with them, for how long who knows Nato might want a new cartridge and I bet dollars to donuts it will be easier to adapt a AR to it than a 80 variant.

I know many disagree with me but that's OK just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

from first hand experience?

---

Hmm.... Interesting thread, as F10 says above, I think that would override any article thats published......... Post #1 certainly enjoyed himself........ But I think we have all been guilty at some point of reading something and put our own feelings towards it, Myself I said my bit sometime back in post 10 in the link below and only following on from Brit Plumbers post #5, (still love the quote he said)

Although since the link below I have had the opportunity to do this ....... and ......and ........and ......... to it and to be honest it operated flawlessly, only problem at one stage was due to a magazine.

One things for sure if I ever have to use it in anger (which I hope I don't but you never know what would happen if Kim Jong-un ever sees his a**e etc) I've every faith in it.


https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=57466&page=1

I worked on the A1 in 1987 ( two years after its introduction) at the Guards Depot (infantry basic training) where it got a real hammering, with lots of use by inexperienced, young users.... We worked flat out to keep the rifles in the hands of the user as well as filling in all the equipment failure reports ( the start of any proposed modification).
We had problems with the quality control of many of the spares supplied, many made by small engineering firms with little or no firearms experience. ( And the same part could be made by a few different companies in a short time)
We Armourers identified the common problems early in its service but there felt like there was an unwillingness for change ( modification) There was one "special" stepped bolt that failed regularly ( bipod leg pivot) we replaced it with a standard m6 bolt and it was accepted as a modification ...... Until the manufacturer made a new "special" stepped bolt and we had to replace all the m6 bolts!!!!
I didn't like to shoot the A1 ( ergonomics, I don't like changing magazines under my armpits...) bit did not have any reliability problems with my A1 and I did more shooting than most as I was part of the shooting team.

With the introduction of the A2 the quality of the parts improved and the common faults were removed by modification. And the work load of the Armourer reduced drastically.... It's now a very reliable platform ( if your Armourer is aware of what to look for in the annual inspection , as some of the parts are nearly 30 years old)

I still don't like it, It's boring to repair!!!!! ...... But can get it to perform out to 600m

We are where we are with the SA80 rifle, a rifle that, today, most people seem to say is reasonably ok. It may not be perfect, it may not be the best available bull-pup rifle, it may not be everyone's cup of tea but it does at least work reasonably well or so we are led to believe. The fact that it may have cost us poor U.K. tax payers shed loads of money is no great surprise. The U.K. has a long history of equipment procurement costs spiralling out of control, something that we are use to in the U.K., nothing new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiprat

I don't like changing magazines under my armpits...

---

Could this have something to do with being in the field a few days in hot climate (obvious not Yorkshire)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

Never served in any UK force did a couple years in the Saskatchewan Dragoons (armoured) but my attendance was about as often as you will see a whooping crane. Had to attend a min. of one parade a year to keep my status as a DCRA shooter which entitled me to lots of free stuff (transportation/lodging/food/competitions) and all the ammo I wanted to use. Also able to draw a FN C1 which was a great gun IMO.

Was accepted into the USMC in 1962 and all went well till I was told with what they were offering I had to renounce my Canadian citizenship and immediately apply for US citizenship. That came about two months before I was to report to San Diego and it was a deal breaker.

Have formed my opinion from reading volumes on troubles from the start of the SA80 and always found it interesting that it was defended by the hierarchy. It is well know that your gov't is purchasing AR's for special units and considering how reliable they are why keep pouring money into a gun that really doesn't live up to expectations. A bull pup is a good gun for CQB but Colt builds a Commando model that is perfect in size/weight and not a bull pup. As before if you want a bull pup go with a Tavor it is a better gun.

Then my son took a trip the Vietnam/Cambodia/Thailand last year and spent the better part of three weeks with a retired Royal Marine Sgt. That Sgt. just confirmed what my son and I thought, the SA80 was a inferior firearm and he hated it. From what I gathered from my son he didn't have a single nice thing to say about it.

I understand it is tough to admit you built a bit of a dud compared to what was available from a different maker but even Ford accepted the Edsel was a huge mistake and dumped it after 4 years. There is a article on how H&K was paid 400 pounds/gun to do mods and that makes no sense when you consider what a AR will cost.

There is so often a lack of common sense and that "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitude when stepping back and taking a thoughtful approach would be the way to go. Now your military are stuck with them, for how long who knows Nato might want a new cartridge and I bet dollars to donuts it will be easier to adapt a AR to it than a 80 variant.

I know many disagree with me but that's OK just my 2 cents.

---

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, absolutely, but stop and pause for thought for a moment, you must admit its impossible to base an informed judgment on written material (by the less well informed shall we say politely) and the raft of info out on the internet that's just plain out of date and not representative of the current issue rifle.

We have the all important Armourers perspective after all, Peter, Geoff and Skippy who have all the relevant qualifications and many many years experience between them, passed​ a solid first hand positive judgment of the rifle.

It had its issues, but like a rebellious teenager it's grown up and matured into a reliable weapon system, as good as anything else in trained hands.

Case for the defence rests...

Glad to hear it's now as good as anything in 5.56x45 can be.

Now I suppose if they can remake it in 6.8x43 we'll have arrived back in 1951 where we were before that short ramble through the wonderland of American "cooperation".

Quote:

---

Selection of 7.62 NATO

Britain, Canada and the United States founder members of NATO, had all signed an agreement that member states would develop and deploy with, common small arms and cartridges developed through competitive trials in co-operation together. Britain and Canada had been open about their developments, and the Americans claimed they were not developing a round of their own and were known to be trialing the British designs.

In fact, Colonel Renée Studler, head of the US Small Arms Bureau of Ordnance had been diametrically opposed to a bullpup design and .280 cartridge, and had started two secret projects on a .30 calibre cartridge. These were the T25 rifle at Springfield Armory under the direction of Earle Harvey, firing the T65 cartridge being developed at Frankford Arsenal. Between 1947 and 1952 the British and Canadians made clear to the United States they were aware of their secret work, stating that it was against the open, collaborative nature of the agreement, making their disapproval clear.

Matters took a turn for the worse when Renee Studler went on record, stating that, any non-American design was "a waste of time" and refused point blank to accept any "foreign" design.[4] It was learned that Studler had gone so far as to bury reports that suggested the .280 was superior in US testing. During firing tests in 1950 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground the Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) for .280 British ball ammunition was measured at 43,600 psi (300.6 MPa). The highest measured maximum pressure was 47,300 psi (326.1 MPa).[5]

A change of government meant that the 7 mm, EM-2 and Taden gun projects were abandoned soon afterwards by Winston Churchill, who returned as the prime minister and desired commonality between the NATO countries. Small amounts of .280 British ammunition were later produced during the 1960s for various small arms trials. At the same time, the British and Canadians, who were very impressed with the cartridge originally planned to have their FN FAL rifles chambered in .280. However, eventually, they agreed to a quid pro quo where the British would use the US-derived .30 (by now the 7.62) while the Americans accepted the FN FAL. This too proved not to be the case, and the US eventually chose their M14 rifle over the FAL.

---

.280 British - Wikipedia

Seems John Garand had a bullpup in the works just around that time! T31: John Garand Forgotten Weapons

What has user feedback been like on the bullpup FAMAS and Steyr AUG ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, absolutely, but stop and pause for thought for a moment, you must admit its impossible to base an informed judgment on written material (by the less well informed shall we say politely) and the raft of info out on the internet that's just plain out of date and not representative of the current issue rifle.

We have the all important Armourers perspective after all, Peter, Geoff and Skippy who have all the relevant qualifications and many many years experience between them, passed​ a solid first hand positive judgment of the rifle.

It had its issues, but like a rebellious teenager it's grown up and matured into a reliable weapon system, as good as anything else in trained hands.

Case for the defence rests...

---

Three decades and it has grown up at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds when a better gun was available from day 1 and probably at a cheaper price. Then units of the UK army are now being issued AR's when your "new' 80 is considered acceptable.

Military guarding your Trident subs are now issued AR's, along with the Pathfinder Group of the Parachute Regiment, UK Special Forces, Royal Military Close Protection Unit and 43 Commando Royal Marines.

The prosecution rests its case.

Matter of fact, I think most of the units that use AR family are using Colt Canada (Diemaco) rifles...C7, C8 and variants...according to "The Black Rifle".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Matter of fact, I think most of the units that use AR family are using Colt Canada (Diemaco) rifles...C7, C8 and variants...according to "The Black Rifle".

---

From what I have heard from owners and many reviews it is a given that Colt Canada (Diemaco) builds a better AR than its US counterpart...and that should start another battle.:D

So...should I start another thread? What's the best AR thread should go about 1000 entries...

the 5.56 M262 Mod 1 load is 2,750~2770 fps out of a 20 inch rifle barrel. The bullet is a 77gr bullet with a G1 BC of .362 from 1,700 fps and up, .343 under 1,700 fps.

pretty effective out to 600 M. Hits the difficult transonic region (1224 fps) around 750~760 yards.

If you compare that to 6.8 x43 SPC cartridge you pretty soon figure out while the 6.8 was dead on arrival once the M262 was being issued, make a good steel jacket or core and the round would be just dandy for standard infantry use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

Three decades and it has grown up at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds when a better gun was available from day 1 and probably at a cheaper price. Then units of the UK army are now being issued AR's when your "new' 80 is considered acceptable.

Military guarding your Trident subs are now issued AR's, along with the Pathfinder Group of the Parachute Regiment, UK Special Forces, Royal Military Close Protection Unit and 43 Commando Royal Marines.

The prosecution rests its case.

---

A better gun avalable from day 1, yep agreed, but you are making the assumption that these things are driven by purely Military Requirements and common sense ... As students of these things, we all know these two points are way down the list!

Other things like political interference and protecting the national industrial base take preeminence.

In the UK, Companies like BAE Systems run like an all consuming Cartel and drain the UK Defence budget.

Look at the US decision to go with the M14 and ditch the Fal back in the 1950's, again all to do with commercial lobbying...

Should the UK have just procured and licence manufactured the M16A2 to replace the L1A1, probably, but that's far to easy, no fun to be had there...

If such an M16A2 procurement had taken place in 1985, you can bet those in the corridors of power would have found a way of making it late into service and cost three times as much anyway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

A better gun avalable from day 1, yep agreed, but you are making the assumption that these things are driven by purely Military Requirements and common sense ... As students of these things, we all know these two points are way down the list!

Other things like political interference and protecting the national industrial base take preeminence.

In the UK, Companies like BAE Systems run like an all consuming Cartel and drain the UK Defence budget.

Look at the US decision to go with the M14 and ditch the Fal back in the 1950's, again all to do with commercial lobbying...

Should the UK have just procured and licence manufactured the M16A2 to replace the L1A1, probably, but that's far to easy, no fun to be had there...

If such an M16A2 procurement had taken place in 1985, you can bet those in the corridors of power would have found a way of making it late into service and cost three times as much anyway!

---

Couldn't agree more on political interference, we see it on a regular basis here in Canada. On a flight to Germany I was fortunate to sit beside a retired PPCLI Major who explained how the procurement process worked. I now understand why it could take 3+ years to select a suitable toilet paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

A better gun avalable from day 1, yep agreed, but you are making the assumption that these things are driven by purely Military Requirements and common sense ... As students of these things, we all know these two points are way down the list!

---

That's a fact, or we would have adopted the MAG along with the FN C1 rifle as we should have. Instead of new cloth on an old coat...the 1919A4 resurrected as the C1/C4/C5 machine gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

I now understand why it could take 3+ years to select a suitable toilet paper.

---

You also must be aware that the officer system takes care of each other after service...they help locate retiring members to lush jobs in companies with positions such as procurement, quality control... You end up with an incestuous relationship between the outside organizations and the current regime. The VERY senior citizen ex officers are of the opinion they are still in the army and still doing things the old way. Makes it hard to move forward with lesson's learned from places like Falklands, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan... This statement isn't meant to be political, just telling you why our system seems a bit slow and retarded.

We used to call the retired-but-still-serving Officers RO's (for Retired Officers). They used to wield a lot of power/authority and even as a lowly Capt, you had to tread carefully! Some even used to wear uniform. One uniform wearing retired Lt.Col I know of was told in no uncertain terms by a serving Lt Col that there was only a place for one such rank - and HE had it!

A whole 'nother set of stories... "Do you know who I am!!!?" Then to be corrected by the serving member..."Who you used to be...sir..."

Nothing wrong with protecting your industrial base, in fact a country that doesn't is led by fools or traitors.

Protecting ones industrial base does not require the adoption of inferior equipment because it of domestic design, that is also the approach of fools or traitors.

In the past Britain distinguished herself by her readiness to adopt what were considered to be the best designs, regardless of origin.

Well, unless from the Dominions of course! ;)

Jim

The real scary part was when he told me in every single step of procurement someone will bring up "can that be made/purchased in Quebec". Now talk about incestuous, realize when that question occurs the entire process goes back to step one to start over again....that could be 98 steps into a 100 step process and it goes back to step 1.

We have our own SA80...Bombardier...we have given them BILLIONS of taxpayer $$$...should have let them go the way of the passenger pigeon years ago.

Hope that is not considered a political statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

Jim

The real scary part was when he told me in every single step of procurement someone will bring up "can that be made/purchased in Quebec". Now talk about incestuous, realize when that question occurs the entire process goes back to step one to start over again....that could be 98 steps into a 100 step process and it goes back to step 1.

We have our own SA80...Bombardier...we have given them BILLIONS of taxpayer $$$...should have let them go the way of the passenger pigeon years ago.

Hope that is not considered a political statement.

---

Not at all, simply a statement of fact, not political!

The general public of most NATO countries would, I am quite sure, be absolutely horrified at the money wasted in dire management practices (that would kill a business overnight if it operated in the private sector) and pointless duplication of capability, that costs many billions and makes kit ever more expensive for the end user, Eurofighter and Rafale immediately come to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

Bombardier

---

Yes...been there, dealt with it. Continuously.

I have not read the whole of this thread as I simply can't be bothered to read all the **** surrounding the L85. I've said it before but as one of the few on this forum that have used the SA80 for the last 22 years, I have no complaints. It hasn't let me down in training, it hasn't let me down on parade, it didn't let me down on bomb disposal duties in Iraq and it never let me down on guard. I ain't special forces or infantry, just like the other 60% or more of the UK military who don't see themselves as front line. I've fired a **** load of guns, ARs, AKs, FNs and they all fired fine. What would I choose? I'll take what's put in my hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

I have not read the whole of this thread as I simply can't be bothered to read all the **** surrounding the L85. I've said it before but as one of the few on this forum that have used the SA80 for the last 22 years, I have no complaints. It hasn't let me down in training, it hasn't let me down on parade, it didn't let me down on bomb disposal duties in Iraq and it never let me down on guard. I ain't special forces or infantry, just like the other 60% or more of the UK military who don't see themselves as front line. I've fired a **** load of guns, ARs, AKs, FNs and they all fired fine. What would I choose? I'll take what's put in my hands.

---

Good for you, just think how more at ease you might have been with a AR?:D

enfield303t:

A bit like elephants mating:

It happens at a high level.
There is a LOT of loud noise.
It takes a VERY long time for a result.

Another breath of fresh air from BP. I pass no further comment on the constant opposition...........

Personally think Bruce_in_OZ has won the "best comment" award.

Does anyone remember the AWAC conversion of the Nimrod that was attempted as a replacement for the ageing Avro Shackletons in the 1980s? The programme seemed to go on for ever, with no end in sight, and the aircraft never did enter service. The whole episode would have been quite amusing if it hadn't cost the U.K. tax payer millions and millions of pounds. In the end the programme was scrapped and U.S. aircraft were purchased.

Oh, that disater was a procurement at its absolute worst F10..

A great example of pointless duplication of effort and horrendous waste of money.

However, the Government was largely to blame there, first the programme should never have been embarked upon (AWACS bought off the shelf).

Second, the MOD kept changing the specification, this resulted in the avionics being in a constant state of modification, that resulted in costs spiralling out of control until the plug was eventually pulled.

I have some pics somewhere of some of the prototype AEW Nimrods on the dump at Abingdon.

Let's not even discuss the Nimrod MR4A!

During trade training (1985) we were the first Armourers course to get our hands on the SA80 ( as part of the basic course, not as a specialist equipment course) we were told many ( many) stories about the SA80 to give us some background of the weapon, we were shown the prototypes and the chopped AR180s .....

Even as a very young new Armourer there was a lot of propaganda some real some made up. To " big up" the new weapon system ( it was not just the rifle "Small arms of the 80s" ....SA80 did include the 51mm mortar, 94mm anti tank and the 94mm trainer.....)

After all these years..... I picked up the book " the last Enfield" and I can not recommended it enough. Some of the rubbish we were told was true , and some of the facts we were told were pure bull....

The idea of the SA80 as it started out is somewhat different to what we got... They did not intend to build a bullpup AR180 but it's what we ended up with....

Read " The last Enfield" it will save reading the rest of this thread! ( I have no personal interest in the sale of this book��)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiprat

During trade training (1985) we were the first Armourers course to get our hands on the SA80 ( as part of the basic course, not as a specialist equipment course) we were told many ( many) stories about the SA80 to give us some background of the weapon, we were shown the prototypes and the chopped AR180s .....

Even as a very young new Armourer there was a lot of propaganda some real some made up. To " big up" the new weapon system ( it was not just the rifle "Small arms of the 80s" ....SA80 did include the 51mm mortar, 94mm anti tank and the 94mm trainer.....)

After all these years..... I picked up the book " the last Enfield" and I can not recommended it enough. Some of the rubbish we were told was true , and some of the facts we were told were pure bull....

The idea of the SA80 as it started out is somewhat different to what we got... They did not intend to build a bullpup AR180 but it's what we ended up with....

Read " The last Enfield" it will save reading the rest of this thread! ( I have no personal interest in the sale of this book��)

---

Couldn't agree enough, it's a very interesting and enlightening read.

Another breath of fresh air from Skippy..............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Let's not even discuss the Nimrod MR4A!

---

The problem here was the governments timing. They cancelled the contract just as all the problems had been fixed. The MR4 had brand new wings which were built to fine tolerances with 21st century engineering. The old fuselages were built with 1950 technology using wooden jigs and then we wonder why things wouldn't fit.

So we buy ex USAF Boeing tankers (in mothball) and turn them into Rivet Joint. An aircraft that has cost more than Nimrod and has air worthiness issues with the MAA because of the frames dubious history. I've only seen the one flying and I'm only 12 miles from Waddo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

The problem here was the governments timing. They cancelled the contract just as all the problems had been fixed. The MR4 had brand new wings which were built to fine tolerances with 21st century engineering. The old fuselages were built with 1950 technology using wooden jigs and then we wonder why things wouldn't fit.

So we buy ex USAF Boeing tankers (in mothball) and turn them into Rivet Joint. An aircraft that has cost more than Nimrod and has air worthiness issues with the MAA because of the frames dubious history. I've only seen the one flying and I'm only 12 miles from Waddo.

---

There's so much to say about MR4 programme we could start a whole new forum never mind a thread...!

I was given a rare insider insight into​ the MR4 by one of the BAe Systems engineering staff (nothing commercially sensitive) involved in that programme.

Things started badly right off the bat (common sense thrown out with the rubbish) it was suggested at an early stage that some of the original engineering staff involved with Nimrod be consulted on the viability of the rebuild.

Senior management refused outright, so the whole programme got off on a very wrong foot... I thought that was a telling mistake ...

As the difficulties mounted, the fixed price contract could only be made to work by reducing the numbers, going from 21 to 16 to 12 and eventually only 9 ...

Had these aircraft actually been delivered I think maintaining such a small fleet of 9 aircraft as time went by, would have got progressively more difficult and expensive.

Still, a dreadful sight seeing the MR4's being scrapped at Woodford.

The 3x Joint Rivet aircraft that the U.K. are buying are only a replacement for the 3x R1 variant of the Nimrod, I believe. We are actually going to buy the P8 Poseidon (hopefully) to replace the Nimrod MRA4 variant soon.

so.........................how many SA80's do they carry. Oops sorry didn't mean to go off the topic:lol::lol:
Have a good weekend;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

so.........................how many SA80's do they carry. Oops sorry didn't mean to go off the topic:lol::lol:
Have a good weekend;)

---

Us go off topic Gil, I don't know what you mean, we went from the SA80, to AR15's via Rover and Defence missmanagement, to Maritime Patrol aircraft and finally back to the SA80 ...Oh, and all done in the Lee Enfield Section!!!

Looks like a pint of the usual to me Gil!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

how many SA80's do they carry.

---

A lot more in a Nimrod MRA4 because they had a bomb bay almost the full length of the aircraft unlike the P8 Poseidon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

so.........................how many SA80's do they carry. Oops sorry didn't mean to go off the topic:lol::lol:
Have a good weekend;)

---

Funny Gil was thinking that several posts ago and I contributed to the issue. I promise not to bring up the acquisition of toilet paper ever again!

HOT here today as we head for range clean up and then a military shoot tomorrow.

I will use a AR as can't get a SA80, my son a Tavor and am disappointed Jim will be unable to participate and give a report on his take on the Tavor.

Hope you have a good weekend as well.

Expecting a thread and pics of the shoot this weekend though...

A SA80 you can have without getting into trouble.
2000 made for the military.
Page 210 of The Last Enfield
Made in Brighton by a company that made adult toys.

Two types were supplied, one with a susat and the other without.

Is it one of the specially made "SA80's" that fire a laser or light beam and is/was used for training purposes?

It may have a special attachment that vibrates or something.[emoji3]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsimmons

It may have a special attachment that vibrates or something.[emoji3]

---

Who knows, it might be excellent at that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Is it one of the specially made "SA80's" that fire a laser or light beam and is/was used for training purposes?

---

No, the one you refer too was or is part of an indoor range, (forget the real name) I recall spending most of the day out side waiting to go in than actual time on the range due to the operating system (not the weapon) the weapon operates and functions like the real deal.

The rubber ones I think are for displays or recruiting stands etc......

British SA80 Rifle - Why The Hate? - YouTube

What the hell accent does this bloke have? I counter him calling us 'guys' over 107 times...... Bad teaching practice I say!

:lol::lol: Agreed, he probably got caught up on a barbed wire fence. This is the correct video I meant to put up about the lazer sight from an earlier question which was filmed at your old stomping ground Peter:

£53 Million Optical Kit for Soldiers 17.01.14 - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

What the hell accent does this bloke have? I counter him calling us 'guys' over 107 times..

---

Like many British people he has taken to using American words/phases such as "Guys", perhaps trying to be "modern and cool". If you are like myself, old fashioned and boring, you may prefer stick to English words and phases because we are British.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

What the hell accent does this bloke have? I counter him calling us 'guys' over 107 times...... Bad teaching practice I say!

---

Half English, half Kermit the frog on helium gas...

Dear o' deary me....... what on earth is the soldier at 1 minute for 10 seconds wearing on his head? And what on earth is his badge doing over his left ear? Don't they have platoon Sgts, section Sgts and CSM's to wear it properly? The age old problem and enemy of all laser sights is daylight and especially sunny daylight! I expect the new binoculars are one-way-trip jobbies.

The RSM's of today Peter are not made of the same stuff as us mate, that would have earned the badge holder at least a "SHELLING"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Don't they have platoon Sgts, section Sgts and CSM's to wear it properly?

---

That's always been an issue...always.

Lasers cause the troops to fiddle to try to get on target. Instinctive shooting has two rounds down and usually on. It needs to be practiced though.

Flying10K mentioned the Avro Shackleton for its impressive service longevity.

It first flew in 1949.

But like a lot of things, it had "history", being based on the major bits of the Avro "Lincoln" bomber.

The "Lincoln" was essentially a Griffon-engined "last gasp" of the legendary Lancaster. Post WW2, starting in Canada, it also spun off the "civil", version, the "Lancastrian".

But, the Lancaster bomber was itself derived from the Pre-WW2 "Manchester", which provided the basic fuselage and outer wings. The Manchester was woefully under-powered with only a PAIR of the notoriously unreliable "Vulture" engines, compared with the four Merlins on a standard Lancaster.

Designed development, not wild "flights of fancy".

The Avro Lancaster proved that the Avro Manchester was a good well designed aircraft, apart from the engines. Many of the early Lancasters were made from converted Avro Manchesters. I believe that I am correct in stating that the Avro Lancaster that is now in the RAF Museum, Hendon, London started out life as a Avro Manchester fuselage although it was never completed as a Manchester, I stand to be corrected on this point.

So much for the SA 80...

I'll just add from my brief experience of shooting the L98A2, for what it's worth amongst the input of the genuine experts that deal with it regularly, that I found it to be a very stable rifle when shooting prone, up on my elbows. I normally avoid that position as much as I can, as I get some discomfort caused by too much Motocross when younger. Not sure why exactly but I had no problems with the SA80, perhaps it's due to the longer length of pull because of the design, and that caused my arms to be at a less acute of an angle when holding it. I found it to be a rock solid position to shoot from, better than I've experienced with pretty much anything I've shot from that position, the angle of head in relation to the sights I also found comfortable with no straining or awkwardness at all and the butt fitted in my shoulder extremely well too. I had no problems with the controls either, the safety was easy to operate, Off with right fore finger and on with left thumb, the bolt was no problem, it felt ok to roll the gun over cock it with thumb and forefinger, I tend to often roll my Enfields over a little as I chamber a round anyway to check what's going on, mag release was fine too, grab the mag and thumb falls on the release no problem. Bolt release just needed a quick touch to operate and was good. Didn't use the bolt hold open leaver and no fun switch of course. As noted earlier in the thread I got a bit excited about the rifle because it surprised me, once in the shoulder it felt well balanced and comfortable, for me personally it all just came together, perhaps it's my body proportions who knows.
The only thing I didn't like was that the trigger housing, the small box like structure the trigger is suspended from was rubbing on my trigger finger at times which was a little irritating... so that's my SA80 gripe!
I think to look at the rifle now in 2017, to me it looks better than it did in the 80's, with or without the Daniel defence rail, it's certainly grown on me, it's a cool looking rifle, which may seem a bit fatuous me saying that but to a 19 year old taking it into harms way I'm sure it helps to one extent or another if you feel your weapon looks the part. And if you see that distinctive rifle in the hands of troops anywhere, you'll be in in no doubt that it's the British coming.

Spot on

So that's another thumbs up by a user, the one thing that's really missing here is a negative report from someone who has actual experience with the rifle ... Tumble weed ... Deafening silence ...

My negative testimony would only be second hand, and at that from the SA trials back in the '70's. As we've stated, much water has moved since then... It was from Canadian troops...

Its a brilliant little rifle for what it is, in the mid ground of weaponry used by an Infantry Battalion. It does now, what it says on the box, just a little longer and a couple of wars to sort it out totally, after listening to the guys on the ground.
What better way of modifying something!!
Thanks must always go out to Peter Laidler and his team at Warminster over those difficult years, for keeping the pressure on the manufacturers on behalf of the practitioners at the sharp end IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

Its a brilliant little rifle for what it is, in the mid ground of weaponry used by an Infantry Battalion. It does now, what it says on the box, just a little longer and a couple of wars to sort it out totally, after listening to the guys on the ground.
What better way of modifying something!!
Thanks must always go out to Peter Laidler and his team at Warminster over those difficult years, for keeping the pressure on the manufacturers on behalf of the practitioners at the sharp end IMHO

---

With the ongoing investment in (and new production of receivers etc) the L85 Gil, I can see it serving on past 2025, probably until 2030...

All that's needed now is new manufacture TMH's and we can effectively build up "new" rifles.

If they are anything like our F88s they will be like Grandpa's axe.

Seven handles and two heads but still as good as the day it was bought.:lol:

To elaborate, we were licenced to build X number of rifles. After considerable service and consequent FTRs the only original part of the rifle was the serial number, unlike the SLRs that underwent the same procedure in Lithgow and finished up with the original number barred out and a new number applied. If someone could explain why this was done I would like to know.

Son may like to chime in here as I believe he worked on a very low number F88 that was a flat top.

Anyway, all bets are off now we have the F90. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

With the ongoing investment in (and new production of receivers etc) the L85 Gil, I can see it serving on past 2025, probably until 2030...

---

Would you say that when it first came out the SA80 was ahead of it's time and should have also been trialled longer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Would you say that when it first came out the SA80 was ahead of it's time and should have also been trialled longer?

---

Forgotten Weapons just recently (within the last couple weeks) did a series of videos on the SA80 series of firearms. It really outlines the flaws, and issues in why it ended up the way it did. The original prototypes were actually better than the later ones surprisingly. It also doesn't help when you change the standards of the trials to get the result you want, instead of the result you got.