Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 8/2/2001 9:57:29 AM EDT
http://defence-data.com/current/page11732.htm
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:07:07 AM EDT
[url]http://defence-data.com/current/page11732.htm[/url] There now its a real link
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:09:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 10:59:23 AM EDT
I remember reading several glowing reports on this turkey when it first came out. Some originated in the US gun press, including SOF magazine (including the usually good Peter Kokalis), and others originated with the Brits.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 11:38:55 AM EDT
It would me the most reliable if it had a US soldier behind it!
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 11:56:29 AM EDT
Who cares !!! its british, so it sucks.... Besides, they will probably ban guns from their military soon anyway. [):)]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 12:04:58 PM EDT
I wonder what changes they made. I would guess that the probably, changed out the powder to a slower buring, higher pressure/cleaner one. Less mess and calcium carbonate. And a slightly slower rate of fire.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 12:10:00 PM EDT
well I dont think most british soildiers have fired many other weapons so when they say "I think its the most reliable in the world" what the hell is the basis for comparison. They cant even own a private AR.... when I was in the military we switched a battery with a British battery in our battalion for a month...we had a sports day of trap/skeet shooting I took my Mossberg 590 out just for fun and they thought the army issued it to me they couldnt belive I took it home every night. They also wanted to know why my M16 was differnt from the ones they had seen..my unit had no M-4s yet and mine is a 16 HBRL. Again they were in shock to learn that is was my weapon....
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 12:30:56 PM EDT
I wonder if they used standard 5.56. To diminish the high failure rate of the SA-80 the Brits were downloading to the point that the ammunition did not work well in many other systems.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 12:50:49 PM EDT
See what happends when you use H&K engineers to solve a problem.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 12:55:51 PM EDT
Hey i thought the new 5.56 "weapon of the future" was the CIS Sar(may be spelled wrong) from Singapore? Supposively higher rate of fire, more accurate, and bullpup design.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 1:14:25 PM EDT
They may be correct in this, but it is an illusion. If the criteria is that the rifle is currently manufactured, they could be correct. If they are saying it is the most reliable in service, they are smoking a little something else in the pipe. The Galil, Valmet, and CETME L are out of production, and I believe the Zastava (Yugo AK Mfg) factory was destroyed a couple of years ago. They must have a rather low opinion of the FNC, MD2, G36, SIG 550,.....
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 12:10:43 AM EDT
Shot the living shit out of a CIS SAR-80 captured in Somalia. Then we destroyed it, as per orders. If I remember right, the whole gas and bolt systems, etc, resembled the SA80, and AR18. As for the English SA-80 IW. I have shot it, played with it, and 'it' is nothing but SHYTE! Even their troops hate it. Oh, and the LSW version, It fires from a closed bolt, is mag fed, and you can't change the bbl! USELESS in battle for any type of fire support, even at the SECT level, where the shit hits the fan first! A western RPK! The Canadians and us Aussies used the 7.62mm NATO FN C2A1 and L2A1 (respectivly) heavy bbl 'AR' (Auto rifles). Both are no longer used by these Forces. The Canucks used it as a SECT wpn, and we issued it to troops other than Infantry, and relied on the L4 BREN in 7.62mm, and the M60 (a great gun!!!). Closed bolt MGs which don't have bbl changes or are not belt fed are shit! The only good thing I can say about the SA-80, is it takes M16 mags.
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 3:46:06 AM EDT
So, if your rifle can fire 150 rounds without a jam it is a worldbeater??????
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 4:53:55 AM EDT
[img]http://defence-data.com/storypic/sa80_kuwait.jpg[/img] Is it just me, or do these two look like drag queens, who went a little too heavy on the rouge???? [}:D]
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 8:35:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2001 8:33:32 AM EDT by rifleman2000]
I wonder if they fixed the way that insect repellent melts the stock, or the cheap magazine catch. Like mentioned above, the original SA80 was supposed to be a "first class assualt rifle." It wasn't. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a whole bunch of bullpup rifles better than the SA80... Stey AUG FA MAS CR21 FN P90 (subgun) and a few others I can't recall. SA80 = GARBAGE!!!!
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 1:41:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: They may be correct in this, but it is an illusion. If the criteria is that the rifle is currently manufactured, they could be correct.
View Quote
I'm not a big fan of the M16 as far s reliability goes (I prefer a gun that works flawlessly even when routine maintenance is pretty much ignored) but the M16 is in current production and is a lot more reliable than the L85. I've heard some pretty bad reports about the Aussie AUGs. Steyr says it's because they weren't made by Steyr, and they may be right, but the few semi-auto versions that I've handled seemed awfully flimsy to me - kinda like a Remington Nylon 66. I never fired one, however, so I may be completely off track.
Top Top