I like the SA80

[Flying10uk]

Worst thing BL ever did F10 was to end the relationship with Honda.

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?

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.

[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.

[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.

[bigduke6]

from first hand experience?

Hmm.... Interesting thread, as F10 says above, I think that would override any article thats published......... Post #1 certainly enjoyed himself........ But I think we have all been guilty at some point of reading something and put our own feelings towards it, Myself I said my bit sometime back in post 10 in the link below and only following on from Brit Plumbers post #5, (still love the quote he said)

Although since the link below I have had the opportunity to do this ....... and ......and ........and ......... to it and to be honest it operated flawlessly, only problem at one stage was due to a magazine.

One things for sure if I ever have to use it in anger (which I hope I don't but you never know what would happen if Kim Jong-un ever sees his a**e etc) I've every faith in it.


https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=57466&page=1

[Surpmil]

So from that article that is linked above it looks like the SA80 was adopted so that RSAF Enfield would have a full order book when the government was trying to flog it off:

Given that the order book at RSAF Enfield needed to be full in order for the Government to be able to sell it off at a good price to the Private Sector, is it any wonder that they found that they had met the majority of the requirements set out in the GSR, with barely a footnote to say that any areas of concern would be sorted out in the near future? Next, the ITDU completed their Trial No. 35/83 titled 'The Final Evaluation of Small Arms for the 80s to meet GSR 3518 (1983)' where they concluded that during "all activities the IW proved itself to be a robust, reliable weapon that suffered from few stoppages."

"It came as no surprise to me that the soldiers in the Gulf should have had these problems, since it was reported to me, by a person involved in the recording of the 1985 trials, that the SA80 had been submitted to the standard sand test three times and each time it failed, miserably. To that person's knowledge, it was never re-submitted after the last failure and, quite clearly, no work had been done since to solve that particular and most significant shortcoming."24

So who actually designed the thing?

[enfield303t]

So from that article that is linked above it looks like the SA80 was adopted so that RSAF Enfield would have a full order book when the government was trying to flog it off:



So who actually designed the thing?

Do you think Lucas the Prince of Darkness was involved?

[Gil Boyd]

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Well, the Lee Metford was adopted with a black-powder .303 cartridge in 1888. Thirty years later, at the end of the "First Great Unpleasantness" what was all the go?

The SMLE, STILL in .303, albeit the high-velocity Mk7 round, but still basically the same action and cartridge it started out with. There was a mind-boggling series of redesigns, tweaks and doctrinal changes in those thirty years. Not to forget a bewildering array of "upgraded" older-pattern rifles, to make up the required numbers.

Scroll through another thirty years, (and another Great Unpleasantness), and there we see the sons and grandsons of the "original" users, STILL clutching a rifle (or carbine) that would be instantly understood and appreciated by the lads of 1888, and within another two years, off to ANOTHER war in North Asia with much the same gear. And let’s also not forget the wonderful L-42 series that just about had to be beaten from the hands of its users, to field a replacement, not THAT many years ago.

And in the "other" corner, large chunks of the "Red" Army STILL carry and use a direct, lineal, descendant of Mikhael Kalashnikovs "agricultural" little "attitude adjuster". Seventy years, and counting!

[Bruce_in_Oz]

And, speaking of "geriatric" equipment / systems:

There's this: The Army found a Browning M2 .50 caliber still shooting perfectly after 90 years - Business Insider