I like the SA80

[mrclark303]

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.

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.

[Lithy]

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.

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.

[Flying10uk]

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?

[Eaglelord17]

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.

[mrclark303]

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

I'm not really qualified to say F10, I'm sure Peter, Mike and Skippy can give you a definitive answer.

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, the concept of designing a weapon system that's "all this be to all men" is, and always will be flawed logic.

We have seen this time and time again, the General Dynamics F111 (cancelled Navy variant), the F35 (finally getting there) are two examples of this folly from the world of aviation.

The basic idea of the bullpup, having a compact weapon with a barrel that's longer than would be the case with a conventional layout, makes good common sense to me as a layman.

As Peter said, the L86 was a pig in a poke and it should have been cancelled and replaced early on.

Unfortunately the whole programme was wrapped up in lawyers of all pervasive Political and civil service meddling right off the blocks... As we all know these people run their own agenda...