I like the SA80

[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...

[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 ?

[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.

[browningautorifle]

Matter of fact, I think most of the units that use AR family are using Colt Canada (Diemaco) rifles...C7, C8 and variants...according to "The Black Rifle".

[enfield303t]

Matter of fact, I think most of the units that use AR family are using Colt Canada (Diemaco) rifles...C7, C8 and variants...according to "The Black Rifle".

From what I have heard from owners and many reviews it is a given that Colt Canada (Diemaco) builds a better AR than its US counterpart...and that should start another battle.

[browningautorifle]

So...should I start another thread? What's the best AR thread should go about 1000 entries...

[Frederick303]

the 5.56 M262 Mod 1 load is 2,750~2770 fps out of a 20 inch rifle barrel. The bullet is a 77gr bullet with a G1 BC of .362 from 1,700 fps and up, .343 under 1,700 fps.

pretty effective out to 600 M. Hits the difficult transonic region (1224 fps) around 750~760 yards.

If you compare that to 6.8 x43 SPC cartridge you pretty soon figure out while the 6.8 was dead on arrival once the M262 was being issued, make a good steel jacket or core and the round would be just dandy for standard infantry use.

[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.