I like the SA80

[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...................

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Gil Boyd]

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.

[enfield303t]

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.

[Flying10uk]

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.

[Surpmil]

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".

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 ?