Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/29/2005 1:58:27 PM EDT
Does anyone know of a place that sells this gun in a civilian semi-auto version?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:08:48 PM EDT
Hmm, sounds like someone likes playing Medic in Battlefield 2 :-P

Heh, sorry. Not that I know of. There might be though, good luck with your hunt.

-Covert
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:29:56 PM EDT
lol, I hate medic in battlefield.

actually though, its a gun (or style gun) ive always liked. Was just curious if anyone knew a place that sold parts, or comeplete rifles.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 2:51:21 PM EDT
Not likely to happen, even in semi form. If you do find one it will be EXTREMELY expensive. There are better bullpups if thats what youre looking for -ie the Aug. If you do find any though let us know.


-K
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:00:34 PM EDT
Contact member LarryG36 in NV.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:05:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kisara:
Contact member LarryG36 in NV.



Kisara is right.

I don't know if Larry still as it, but last time a saw a picture of it he wanted $15,000 for it. There are only a few semi auto L85s in the US so they command a large price.

Chris
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:20:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By UZI4you:

Originally Posted By Kisara:
Contact member LarryG36 in NV.



Kisara is right.

I don't know if Larry still as it, but last time a saw a picture of it he wanted $15,000 for it. There are only a few semi auto L85s in the US so they command a large price.

Chris



--good lord!

medics on BF2 is ok....better than the antitankers
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 3:52:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 3:53:51 PM EDT by MurdockTheCrazy]
New ones would be illegal due to the '86 import ban.

Any imported before that would be very rare, and thus VERY costly.

Besides, it's not all that good a rifle, in my opinion.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:02:24 PM EDT
about 7 years ago I was at the range with a British Armouer and he said the weapon was no good. But as he said it the M16/C7 is battle proven and you can`t argue with that.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:04:20 PM EDT
C7 is our Canadian version of your M16A2. But without burst and we kept the old A1 sights, till they went flat top and use optics now.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:05:54 PM EDT
The weapon has been highly updated in the last several years due to HK redesigning the weapon platform to increase reliabitily. Hence the HK NATO 5.56 SA80 magazines.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:11:40 PM EDT
I thgought back in the 80s the SA80 wich is what it was before H&K redesigned it into the L85 wich still sucks was once imported along with the semi only Famas and Aug?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:20:14 PM EDT
You guys do realize that the SA80 series is effectively a bastardized AR18, right?

Link Posted: 12/29/2005 9:53:37 PM EDT
Wasnt it having problems with running consistantly? If I remember right in the early 90s there were reports of the thing jamming cuz you didnt hold your mouth right when shooting it
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 12:26:17 AM EDT
A very small number were imported, but they are few and far between and command a premium price. The L85A1 wouldn't be a weapon I would spend 10,000.00 on unless it was transferable automatic. The A1's are trash. They are probably one of the worst weaposn used by a major military. They are poorly made and suffer from multiple failures which make them nearly impossible to shoot, unless you managed to get a "good one". I was able to shoot both an A1, A2 and LSW recently. They had an ultra rare A1 carbine, but no one shot it...probably because it wouldn't work. They demonstrated the A1 which couldn't get through a magazine without

something happening. The top cover would pop off, the magazine would drop out and there were a number of failures. The A2 shot all day long without a hitch as did the LSW they turned itno a DMR/SAW concept. The A2 was practically re-built by HK and is an excellent weapon though still tarnished by the A1's reputation. Accuracy is excellent, especially with the LSW, on a par with the M16A2. I hate bull pups and the cyclic rate was way to high, but the SUSAT makes it a very

effective and accurate weapon. Modification to A2 spec is complete, though it is on the way out.
The SAS and other commando units have moved on to M16 variants and the LSW is being phased out for the FN Minimi. Production ceased years ago, and no more will be made. Given all semi auto L85's in the US are A1's I would seriously disuade you from buying one, especially for a price

north of ten thousand dollars. Sabre had some at thier both at an arms show in Europe and they were planning on making them or were making them for the civvie market in the EU, IIRC. If you want a real bull pup buy a AUG A3 or FN 2000, much better weapons.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:07:48 AM EDT
The L85A1's are not that bad, it beats the M16 for accuracy, if not reliability

That said, I wouldn't waste the money it would demand in the USA, unless you were a real serious collector!

Sabre Defence making L85's I would like to see that, more BS from Guy Savage.......
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:25:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 6:36:34 AM EDT by Alien]

Originally Posted By ACR26:
The L85A1's are not that bad, it beats the M16 for accuracy, if not reliability




You are the only person in the thread that believes that.

The AR15/M16 series of weapons is probably the most accurate auto loading assault/battle rifle in the world right out of the box. Reliability wise, some AR15s/M16s may have reliability issues, but most run like champs when they are maintained properly. It is obviously no AK47, but gas piston uppers and newest generation mags (HK or USGI with magpul followers) are supposed to make it more AK47 like for reliability.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:28:34 AM EDT
So the AR15 has a free floated barrel out of the box does it?
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:41:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ACR26:
So the AR15 has a free floated barrel out of the box does it?



Some do, some don't. Obviously if you're talking about the cheapest configuration you can buy, it'll come with regular handguards. I don't know if it does have one, but the L85A1 would not necessarily be more accurate by virtue of a free floated barrel.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 6:41:08 AM EDT
I have fired almost a full mag from a SA80A2 and have never experienced a jam
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 7:04:18 AM EDT
The standard MIL issue L85A1 is free floated, the standard MIL issue M16 is not.

The L85A1 is very accurate, that was the point of my post.
It is excellent on the "known Distance' ranges, not so good in combat conditions.

The A2 addresses the second half of my previous sentence

I have shot the L85 A1 and A2 Internationally in Military competition for over 10 years and we give the US Armed Forces a good thrashing when we can
Training time / practise being our limiting factor against the US MIL 'Professional' teams.

Likewise, I own several AR15's including tuned Highpower / Tactical free floated ones.
My out of the box 'work' L85 can do as good as these given the same issue ammo......

I am not here to start a 'my dog is better than your dog' type discussion, Ryno_the_wyno posted a limited view of the L85A1, I am posting (as an operator) a more balanced view.

Accuracy has never been a problem with the L85 system, indeed the US Teams who come over to the UK try to source out the older but better M193 to compete with, to help close the gap! Heaven help us if they get some Mod 262 next year, we will be playing catch up!
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 7:16:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By ACR26:
The L85A1's are not that bad, it beats the M16 for accuracy, if not reliability




You are the only person in the thread that believes that.



No he is not.


I've trained with British units in the late 1980's (long before the HK upgrades) and not only were their rifles extremely accurate, but I didn't see ANY particular problems with reliability.

The lack of reliability legend has grown so much in the telling that it has become a completely ridiculouos exagerration. Much like the "made by Mattel" and "plastic piece of crap" reputation that the M16 got in the early years of its adoption in the U.S. military.

There was huge resistance to the adoption of the 5.56 cartridge by the British military, who was very attached to the L1A1, and everyone would slam the L85A1 for exactly the same reasons the M16 was criticized when it was adopted. Much of that criticism was nothing but made-up bullshit.

However, the A1 did have some reliability issues in adverse conditions - which is why eventually HK was brought in to retrofit them (not enough of an expert to know exactly what they did).


But the suggestion that under normal conditions, the A1 was compeltely unreliable, and couldn't make it thourgh a mag without a malfunction is complete and utter bullshit (but it is correct that it was not quite as reliable as an M16, especially in particulalry adverse environments).
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 10:09:11 AM EDT
Before the HK upgrades, the rifle was designed to fire 400 some rounds in a 24 hour period without jamming or cleaning.


After the upgrade it was required to fire 400 plus rounds in just a few minutes with no mean stops of failures.

One problem the old series had was the lack of a magazine release fencing which was quite a problem of accidently dropping a mag in the field under fire. The old SUIT optics were known to lose zero after a hard landing such as in paratrooper ops.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 10:43:15 AM EDT
In 1985 a trial was conducted on reliability of the L85A1 in a variety of climates / temperatures.

To summarize the results:-

40,713 rounds fired
585 'malfunctions' of one sort or another

Mean Rounds Before Failure 69 (or one every two magazines)

Over 20 modifications were introduced up to 2002

It's last trial showed a MRBF of 412

(The L85A2 stands at a MRBF of 25,593 one every 853 magazines)
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 10:58:01 AM EDT
Wow, H&K is "fixing" our problems as well. So far (the ones I've seen) have been out of the box free floaters. It's an HK conspiracy I tell you, Deifying an already superior combat weapon.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 11:09:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 11:28:04 AM EDT by Alien]

Originally Posted By ACR26:
In 1985 a trial was conducted on reliability of the L85A1 in a variety of climates / temperatures.

To summarize the results:-

40,713 rounds fired
585 'malfunctions' of one sort or another

Mean Rounds Before Failure 69 (or one every two magazines)

Over 20 modifications were introduced up to 2002

It's last trial showed a MRBF of 412

(The L85A2 stands at a MRBF of 25,593 one every 853 magazines)



I am not trying to get into an "our gun is better than your gun!" argument. I was simply questioning the comment about accuracy of the L85 being better than an AR15/M16 in my post. And for what it's worth, many US troops do have free floated hand guards on their M4s. I have no doubt that HK's modifications greatly improved the L85's reliability. My AR15 reliability comment wasn't to suggest that the AR15 may have a higher MRBF count, just that the AR15 isn't an inherently unreliable system.

Anyway, if the L85A2 is such a superior gun, why do the SAS/SBS use Diemaco M4 style weapons?

Edited to add: I'm just teasing about the SAS/SBS use of M4s.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 12:45:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 12:46:15 PM EDT by streetfighter]

Originally Posted By Alien:

I am not trying to get into an "our gun is better than your gun!" argument. I was simply questioning the comment about accuracy of the L85 being better than an AR15/M16 in my post. And for what it's worth, many US troops do have free floated hand guards on their M4s. I have no doubt that HK's modifications greatly improved the L85's reliability. My AR15 reliability comment wasn't to suggest that the AR15 may have a higher MRBF count, just that the AR15 isn't an inherently unreliable system.



The SA80 family of rifles has always been noted for their inherent accuracy capabilities.
This is why it has always done so well at Interservices Service Rifle competitions.

It has a floated barrel as standard, and this is something the M16/M4 series doesn't have without retro-fitting them with aftermarket parts.

As a shooting range implement, the SA80 was always superior to the M16, more compact, better balance, longer barrel.
For combat, to some extent that was a different matter, but the M16 has not been without it's problems throughout it's history.

The SA80A1 and A2 are totally different beasts and I've yet to meet someone who's unhappy with their A2's performance.
The SA80 was designed to be the finest assault rifle in the world and now that it's had it's A2 improvements......................it just might be

Mark
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:24:20 PM EDT
For those of you have shot both and are comparing the accuracy, are you comparing an iron sight M16A2 to the L85 with a SUSAT? Or is the L85 still more accurate when compared to an M16A4 with a TA31F ACOG?

Link Posted: 12/30/2005 5:26:22 PM EDT
To the best of my knowledge Canada traded C7 (M16A2) rifles and a smaller number of C8 (Car15 or M4) weapons the Great Britain`s armed forces in exchange for Mortar rounds or some other ordance. About 7years ago
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 9:18:39 PM EDT
I agree with ACR26, my view is limited compared to his. I had a weekend with these weapons, certainly not a carrer. Make no mistake, both the A1 and A2 are more accurate than M16's without a free floated barrel. The SUSAT, which is standard on the A2, makes accurate and effective shooting much easier. When I was exposed to the L85's it was clear the A1 was there to prove how much better the A2 is. The LSW which was setup as a SAW/DMR concept was particularly impressive, yielding sub MOA groups and the ability to provide accurate automatic fire. For snipers in Iraq providing cover from buildings for troops on the street, this type of weapon would be invaluable. The LSW in DMR/SAW guise is a sniper/LMG....amazing. Show me a Minimi that can do that. In any event, the A1 had alot of functional problems which have since been sorted out, with the exception of a "cheap feel and look" to components. Interstingly, British soldiers surveyed had 80% confidence in thier L85A2's....which is the same percentage of soldier confidence American troops have in thier M4's.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 9:27:41 PM EDT
Since the only carry handles which exist for the L85's are used on the "cadet rifles" which are single shot training weapons, the SUSAT is standard for the A2. A L85A2 with SUSAT will be more accurate than an M16A4 with ACOG. The A4 doesn't always have a KAC rail, it depends on the unit and branch of military. Many think A4 automatically equals ACOG and KAC rail. This isn't always the case....An "East Coast" A4 with ACOG would be more accurate than an L85A2 with SUSAT as they have had modification to become accurized, semi-auto DMR weapons. An A4 with non-floated KAC rail and ACOG would not be as accurate as a L85A2 with SUSAT. That being said, a standard "west coast" A4 with ACOG and free floated KAC rail would be MORE accurate than a L85A2 with susat as if you neutralize the advantage of the floated barrel and combat optic, the accuracy advantage of the M16's operating system makes it a more accurate weapon.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 11:33:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 11:36:57 AM EDT by SLR]

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
Since the only carry handles which exist for the L85's are used on the "cadet rifles" which are single shot training weapons, the SUSAT is standard for the A2. A L85A2 with SUSAT will be more accurate than an M16A4 with ACOG. The A4 doesn't always have a KAC rail, it depends on the unit and branch of military. Many think A4 automatically equals ACOG and KAC rail. This isn't always the case....An "East Coast" A4 with ACOG would be more accurate than an L85A2 with SUSAT as they have had modification to become accurized, semi-auto DMR weapons. An A4 with non-floated KAC rail and ACOG would not be as accurate as a L85A2 with SUSAT. That being said, a standard "west coast" A4 with ACOG and free floated KAC rail would be MORE accurate than a L85A2 with susat as if you neutralize the advantage of the floated barrel and combat optic, the accuracy advantage of the M16's operating system makes it a more accurate weapon.



Ryno, where did you get the gen that only the Cadet rifles had the iron sights ?
The L96A1 Cadet GP to give it its correct title, is a straight pull (rather than a single shot) version of the L85.
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7206/sa80m047xx.jpg
The GP can be fitted with a SUSAT, but it is only done for familiarisation or publicity shots.

The SUSAT is standard only for the Inf, other arms are issued with the iron sights.
A buzz has gone round that everyone would get the SUSAT but remember which government is running the forces... We're not holding our breath !

They're NOT carry handles by the way, any Brit sldr carrying his wpn by the sights would get it inserted up his fundament !

Both the L85A1 and L85A2 are good accurate rifles - for range work.
As to their reliability, the A1 was poor, due not least to the wpn being made of lighter gauge tin than the specs, and the old Brit mags are the biggest load of pants since Oprah Winfrey's unmentionables.
The mags 'designed' for the A2 were just H&K Stanag mags first used on the G41, and are good kit.
The A2 is much better, although the tests they used were 'adjusted' to allow it to pass, since the A1 had been removed from the list of NATO approved wpns.

Personally I dislike the SA80's, but we use what we're issued.
The SUSAT is easily more robust than the ACOG although personally I prefer the later, why do you think the SUSAT/L85A2 comb is more accurate than the M16A4/AGOG combo ?

I'm also unsure as to what you mean when you say:
"That being said, a standard "west coast" A4 with ACOG and free floated KAC rail would be MORE accurate than a L85A2 with susat as if you neutralize the advantage of the floated barrel and combat optic, the accuracy advantage of the M16's operating system makes it a more accurate weapon."

How does the M16's op system make it more accurate than the L85's ?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:01:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SLR:
How does the M16's op system make it more accurate than the L85's ?



less moving mass
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:21:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By streetfighter:
As a shooting range implement, the SA80 was always superior to the M16, more compact, better balance, longer barrel.

According to what I've found, the SA80 has a 518mm barrel, and the M16's is 508mm. Are you saying that there's a measurable improvement in accuracy over the M16 because of this extra 10mm? I'd buy measurable superiority because of a free floated barrel, but not 10mm in length.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:55:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By warren-hpf:

Originally Posted By SLR:
How does the M16's op system make it more accurate than the L85's ?



less moving mass



Which mass do you mean ? The hammer/firing pin ?

I can see this having an effect on lock time, but not the accuracy of the weapon.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 1:36:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GHPorter:

Originally Posted By streetfighter:
As a shooting range implement, the SA80 was always superior to the M16, more compact, better balance, longer barrel.

According to what I've found, the SA80 has a 518mm barrel, and the M16's is 508mm. Are you saying that there's a measurable improvement in accuracy over the M16 because of this extra 10mm? I'd buy measurable superiority because of a free floated barrel, but not 10mm in length.



As with other rifles, barrel length by itself should not have any effect on accuracy - but the free float might.

On a military arm (with regular triggers) I cannot imagine any practical difference in accuracy between the two systems.

When the SA80 came out, part of the reason it kicked other arms' asses in terms of practical accuracy was the optic, not the rifle itself IMO.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 3:11:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:41:43 AM EDT
I spent some time collating all the information I could find on the SA80 story - it's HERE

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:47:14 AM EDT
I've shot 2 L85's (well, one was an early SA-80 to be fair). Both were reliable and the owners of both guns said they ran well. Both were very accurate, and the optics were good too.

I was impressed with the gun, and have always eyed the criticisms with some degree of skepticism based on my limited experience with them.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:02:49 AM EDT
Tony, as a Brit, you should come over to the UK Hometown forum and check in.
We need more people over there

Mark
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:55:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 4:56:27 AM EDT by LeitnerWise]
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:00:11 AM EDT
SLR,
The "moving mass" comment refers to the piston. Since the standard AR15/M16 has no moving parts attached to the barrel, there is nothing to affect the barrel harmonics. The piston system of the L85 (and the desired LW or HK416 systems ) have piston/op rod components that affect barrel harmonics and theoretically/practically have an effect on accuracy.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:30:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:32:07 AM EDT
Tony,
Thanks for the link to the writeup. I've read the same info in the past, but it was split between different sources so its nice to get a compilation.

In reviewing the original design specs of the SA80, I'm amazed at the thinking. The rifle was designed to be reliable firing 120 rds in a 24 hr period! My God, the man who came up with that should have been sacked! Ordinary combat in WWII exceeded that, not to mention the historical examples found in Korea and Viet Nam. You'd think they would have had someone with thinking past WWI.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:10:00 PM EDT
Tag for later
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 1:50:33 PM EDT
Are the SAS operators still using M16/C7 type weapons?
If those guys switch over to the L85A2, that would say something.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 4:23:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 4:24:39 PM EDT by SLR]

Originally Posted By wes15a2:
Are the SAS operators still using M16/C7 type weapons?
If those guys switch over to the L85A2, that would say something.



No.
L85A2's are only used if the lads are posing as a std Inf (or Corps) unit, but no bugger wants to carry the A2 if others are avilable.

The C7 and C8 are still used as is the Diemaco SFW.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 5:16:55 PM EDT
I read stories in soldier of fortune during the first gulf war about SA80s being made so poorly that you could squeeze the receiver and prevent the bolt from moving.And even after the H&K redesign it didnt help much...I hate to say it but Id use the French FAMAS before that weapon,the AUG or even the Bushmaster M17s.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 5:50:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 5:51:27 PM EDT by StealthyBlagga]
Even if the HK upgrade fixed all the quality, robustness and reliability issues, the SA80 is still ergonomically inferior to the M16. The inability to shoot off the left shoulder is unforgivable .
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 7:17:43 PM EDT
The wrong shoulder?
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 7:20:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Creeper:
The wrong shoulder?



Yes - tactically useful, particularly in urban areas. The British Army made an art of it with the L1A1 SLR in Ulster.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top