I like the SA80

[enfield303t]

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.

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.

[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...

[enfield303t]

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.

[mrclark303]

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!

[enfield303t]

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.

[browningautorifle]

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.

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.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

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.