I like the SA80

[mrclark303]

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!

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.