I like the SA80

[mrclark303]

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...