User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 1:35:40 PM EDT
[#1]
In fairness, the original gripes were far less important than the flaws on the orignal AR. The main problem was with the stocks in extreme temperatures.
The SA-80 has been reconficured to address this issue. While NOT the BEST bullpup in the world, the AUG and TAVOR are better, it is not a bad rifle. Most who complain about them would complain about ANY bullpup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 1:36:46 PM EDT
[#2]
I thought the AK was the world's most reliable?
Either way, I am not giving up on my AR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 1:39:11 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote from article: "The reliability of this weapon has been hugely improved.".
In simple math: 0 x 100%= 0. Seriously, the Brits could have replaced the entire lot of these things with a proven weapon for less money. This is simply national pride on the line. I hope it really does work now, and no Brits get killed trying to shoot back with a hopelessly jammed rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 1:42:34 PM EDT
[#4]
What's is actually weigh fully loaded with a charged mag? 10 - 12 lbs? That's a 5.56 mm weapon that weighs almost twice as much as an M-16A4!
Well if you can figure out the British monetary system and its peculiar currency, then I suppose the SA80 is no big problem! Eric The(HowMuchAmmoDoYouGiveUpForThatWeightDiff?)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 1:44:27 PM EDT
[#5]
It is kind of funny when considering that the British government is spending a lot of money to bring a rifle that got drop from the NATO acceptance list a few years ago. In addition, the upgrades is being done in Germany by HK. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 1:47:14 PM EDT
[#6]
I hope no one in the british armed forces is a lefty!
[beer] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 1:55:03 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: What's is actually weigh fully loaded with a charged mag? 10 - 12 lbs? That's a 5.56 mm weapon that weighs almost twice as much as an M-16A4! Eric The(HowMuchAmmoDoYouGiveUpForThatWeightDiff?)Hun[>]:)] Enfield L85A1 (SA80) 8 lbs. & 31" M16A2 12 lbs & 40" M4 5 lbs & 30" All rifles use the same NATO (AR) mag. A M4 w/ similar optics to the SA80 would weigh about the same as a SA80. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 1:59:05 PM EDT
[#8]
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_656000/656050.stm[/url]
Little more info on the weapon and its problems |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:02:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Enfield L85A1 (SA80) 8 lbs. & 31" M16A2 12 lbs & 40" M4 5 lbs & 30" All rifles use the same NATO (AR) mag. A M4 w/ similar optics to the SA80 would weigh about the same as a SA80. Uhh.. the M16A2 is 7.5 lbs plus 1.1lbs for a loaded 30 round magazine (Loaded M16A2 8.6lbs) . All this info is in the -23&P (along with weights for slings & bayonets) on page 1-4.2 for change 5. If the M4 is 5lbs (which its not, it is 6lbs 7 oz WITH the carry handle attached), and the Compact Trijicon is less than a pound that gives me a rifle FAR lighter than the SA80 (still lighter with the trijicon optics by a pound if you use the real weight). And the Compact Trijicon is FAR better than the optics on the SA80. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:03:27 PM EDT
[#10]
And they also think disarming people and giving criminals more rights than citizens, is a good idea.
England is a Shithole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:05:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Somebody correct me if Im wrong..but pretty sure Royal Ordanance..a Brit company bought up H&K a few years back...after the German Govt refused to subsidize it due to indebtedness due to the caseless ammo rifle project...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:05:30 PM EDT
[#12]
[b]Built by Royal Ordnance in the 1980s when it was under state ownership, the SA80 has been in use by the Army for more than a decade but there are serious concerns it jams in extremely hot and cold weather conditions. [/b]
Yup, these are the same rifles my buddies were complaining about. They have since been rteconfigured and corrected. There was also a problem with the handguard breaking/separating in harsh conditions. According to the guys I talked to, former Australian SAS this problem was corrected a couple years ago. The article indicates otherwise. [img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/655000/images/_656883_sa80_info_3_300.gif[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:08:02 PM EDT
[#13]
[url]http://assaultweb.net/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001703.html[/url]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:10:03 PM EDT
[#14]
BTW the SA80 also can't handle full power M855 (62 gr NATO load). British 5.56 (using the SS109 bullet) is way underloaded by US standards and sometimes has problem cycling other 5.56 rifles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:10:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: If the M4 is 5lbs, and the Compact Trijicon is less than a pound that gives me a rifle FAR lighter than the SA80. And the Compact Trijicon is FAR better than the optics on the SA80. Which Trijicon? A reflex 2? That is certainly NOT better than the optics on a SA80. A Elcan or Acog would be close and, you are correct bring the rifle in near a pound and a 1/2 less. Unless you retained the carry handle on the M4. My point was it is NOT twice the weight of the M4, but similar. Given the two I'd rather roll the M4, with Iron sights it is faster than the SA80. The SA80 has irons on top of the scope, like the AUG, but you become conditions to forget them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:41:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Which Trijicon? A reflex 2? In case you missed it the first time: [b]...Compact Trijicon... I assumed you are familier with the Compact Trijicon Scopes like the TA50? Very light, has BAC, and the reticule is lighted day or night (I really like the Triangle reticule cause then you can use it like the ELCAN at a lower cost and weight). Edited to add: With a fixed handled upper these work very well and the irons are still usable - and the rifle is STILL lighter than the SA 80. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:44:42 PM EDT
[#17]
[img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/655000/images/_656883_sa80_info_3_300.gif[/img]
It even "looks" British... I can't explain it, but it has a British look to it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 2:50:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: It even "looks" British... I can't explain it, but it has a British look to it... British - just like Jag cars. Just about as reliable too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 3:10:07 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: While NOT the BEST bullpup in the world, the AUG and TAVOR are better, it is not a bad rifle. . Just curious, but how do you know the TAVOR is a better rifle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 3:39:09 PM EDT
[#20]
During operation Palliser in Sierra Leone, British Para Pathfinders were defending the airport in a position when approximately 40 rebels approaced, the Brits were ready to ambush, when it was initiated safety switches on 2 L85A1s jammed, this and other recent failures have caused the recall in the described in the article linked by 9divdoc. The failure in Sierra Leone hasn´t been very public but it seems it initiated this recall.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 3:43:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Just in the last few days I remember comming across a BBC article about the SAS, SBS, and perhaps others getting to use new Diemaco C8 series carbines for the first time.
The rifles that come out of HK's remanufacturing program damn well better be the most reliable rifles in the world. They certainly will be the most expensive |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 3:48:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Most reliable rifle in the world is undoubtably a single shot rifle such as a Ruger #1, next in line would be a good bolt gun like a remington 700, then the AK reigns supreme as the worlds most reliable autofeed rifle. Bar none.
BTW that Brit pos looks real fun for lefty`s. If the brits made it it will leak oil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 3:51:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Just curious, but how do you know the TAVOR is a better rifle? Based upon performance data I've seen and the handful of people I know who have actually shot the Tavor. I do NOT own one, or a SA80, but wish I did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 4:01:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: [b]Built by Royal Ordnance in the 1980s when it was under state ownership, the SA80 has been in use by the Army for more than a decade but there are serious concerns it jams in extremely hot and cold weather conditions. [/b] Yup, these are the same rifles my buddies were complaining about. They have since been rteconfigured and corrected. There was also a problem with the handguard breaking/separating in harsh conditions. According to the guys I talked to, former Australian SAS this problem was corrected a couple years ago. The article indicates otherwise. [img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/655000/images/_656883_sa80_info_3_300.gif[/img] Two Brits I know, one who was in the Blues and Royals (tours in N Ireland, Mideast, etc.) as well as another guy who was in the TA, both HATED the SA80 and thought getting rid of the SLR (L1A1) was the dumbest thing the British military ever did while they were in the service. The SA80: call it the Curtiss Helldiver of battle rifles. The US govt. spent millions designing, re-designing and re-re-designing the SB2C, and it wasn't until the 2nd World War was over, did they get the airplane to work reliably, with its fifth version, the SB2C-5, even after it had long been in service, killing crews with its numerous defects and just generally being an unsound, unflyable plane. The analogy is apt, no? "Son of a Bitch, 2nd Class" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 4:03:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Some prices for L85A1s that have appeared in Finnish gun magazine ads.
L85A1 with the handle and iron sights: 3230$ L85A1 with the SUSAT sight: 4150$ L86A1 LSW with the SUSAT sight: 4769$ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 4:04:37 PM EDT
[#26]
when I was an armor in Saudi In 95 the Brits had two racks of sa80 and would always opt to draw on of our A1's instead it appears according to them to suck in dry dusty invirnoments. they also said the gas piston could be put in wrong and drop down to restrict the gas flow making it a single shot this would need to be repaired at the armory level not an individualized fix.
john |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 4:16:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Some prices for L85A1s that have appeared in Finnish gun magazine ads. L85A1 with the handle and iron sights: 3230$ L85A1 with the SUSAT sight: 4150$ L86A1 LSW with the SUSAT sight: 4769$ is that the price per unit???!!! OMG! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 4:37:19 PM EDT
[#28]
The few British troops I've talked to who actually used the thing say it is a pile of shit. One guy I met at the range was with the Irish force, but was kicked out of the Army for insubordination. Why? He has his L1A1 replaced by an L4 and when they did a sweep he had to walk the right side of the street. He refused to take the right side. Why? Because to shoot around a right-hand corner you have to completely expose yourself to fire the weapon.
There are no left-handed soldiers in the British military (literally, lefties are not permitted to shoot left handed, and this has always been so). Even so, the rifle is about as useful as a paperweight. It has all manner of feed, extraction, and ejection problems that will probably never be fixed. The weapon can't take the NATO-spec 5.56mm ammunition that every other NATO rifle can fire because the pressures are too high for the very poorly designed rifle to handle without self destructing. The SA80/L4 is a piece of shit. As a sidenote, the SA80 is the first rifle cartridge firing rifle the British Army has used that is of British design. The Martini was a Swedish design, the Lee/Enfield was an American design, and the L1 was from Belgium. "Do what you will, just don't believe the British can actually desing a rifle worth a damn." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 4:44:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: The few British troops I've talked to who actually used the thing say it is a pile of shit. One guy I met at the range was with the Irish force, but was kicked out of the Army for insubordination. Why? He has his L1A1 replaced by an L4 and when they did a sweep he had to walk the right side of the street. He refused to take the right side. Why? Because to shoot around a right-hand corner you have to completely expose yourself to fire the weapon. There are no left-handed soldiers in the British military (literally, lefties are not permitted to shoot left handed, and this has always been so). Even so, the rifle is about as useful as a paperweight. It has all manner of feed, extraction, and ejection problems that will probably never be fixed. The weapon can't take the NATO-spec 5.56mm ammunition that every other NATO rifle can fire because the pressures are too high for the very poorly designed rifle to handle without self destructing. The SA80/L4 is a piece of shit. As a sidenote, the SA80 is the first rifle cartridge firing rifle the British Army has used that is of British design. The Martini was a Swedish design, the Lee/Enfield was an American design, and the L1 was from Belgium. "Do what you will, just don't believe the British can actually desing a rifle worth a damn." L85A1 is the designation of it in the British Armed Forces, i don´t understand where you got the L4, since an L4A1 is a Bren MG in 7.62x51 And the rifle is perfectly capable of firing NATO spec 5.56x45 ammo, the problems are somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 4:52:20 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: L85A1 is the designation of it in the British Armed Forces, i don´t understand where you got the L4, since an L4A1 is a Bren MG in 7.62x51 And the rifle is perfectly capable of firing NATO spec 5.56x45 ammo, the problems are somewhere else. Got the designation wrong, oops. As far as the ammo, that ain't what I've heard. Any way you look at it, it's a pile of crap. It's heavy, not reliable, can't be fired left-handed, and is more expensive than the M-16. Notice that the Brits are the only people to use the SA80, but quite a few countries use the M-16. The Canadians, Israelis, Filipinos, and the Vietnamese even use rifles left over from the war. As far as weapons systems go, SA80 is a huge failure. "Do what you will, just remember that the British aren't known for their impressive mechanical skill." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 5:14:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: "Do what you will, just remember that the British aren't known for their impressive mechanical skill." Two words to counter that: Lee-Enfield. "Rule .303!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 5:19:15 PM EDT
[#32]
GOD BLESS THE INCH FAL!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 6:28:36 PM EDT
[#33]
The British have also announced that the Rolls Royce Silver Shadow is the world's most affordable car and that Prince Charles is the world's sexiest man. [:E]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 8:35:12 PM EDT
[#34]
The Lee Enfield was designed by James Lee an American. The only real good rifle designed by the brits was the Pattern 14 Enfield in my opinion and it was built over here ! The Brits should stay with copying good weapons from other countries , Hell they didn't even invent the BREN lght machinegun....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 8:54:53 PM EDT
[#35]
Geeze what was I thinking , the P14 is based on the German Mauser 98. I guess the Brits can't design a decent rifle from scratch !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 9:52:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: What's is actually weigh fully loaded with a charged mag? 10 - 12 lbs? That's a 5.56 mm weapon that weighs almost twice as much as an M-16A4! Eric The(HowMuchAmmoDoYouGiveUpForThatWeightDiff?)Hun[>]:)] Enfield L85A1 (SA80) 8 lbs. & 31" M16A2 12 lbs & 40" M4 5 lbs & 30" All rifles use the same NATO (AR) mag. A M4 w/ similar optics to the SA80 would weigh about the same as a SA80. Uh, since when did an M16 weigh 12 lbs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 9:54:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: As a sidenote, the SA80 is the first rifle cartridge firing rifle the British Army has used that is of British design. The Martini was a Swedish design, the Lee/Enfield was an American design, and the L1 was from Belgium. The SA-80 was based on the American designed AR-18. Other British guns of note: the Vickers (designed by Maxim, an American), the Lewis gun (another American), the Bren (Czech), the FN-MAG (Belgium, but based upon a Browning gas system), the Browning High Power (Belgium/Browning), the Lancaster (copy of the German Bergmann SMG) and the Browning M-2 .50 BMG. Some guns actually designed by Brits: the Webly and Scott and Enfield revolvers. The Sten (which copied some ideas from the MP-38/MP-40). And the Sterling SMG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 3:56:17 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Two words to counter that: Lee-Enfield. "Rule .303!" The Lee-Enfield isn't a British design genius. Lee was an American. "Do what you will, just learn a bit more about your guns first." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 6:23:27 AM EDT
[#39]
A quote by one British officer does not contitute the whole country. If you talk to some US military personal, they'll tell you that the M16 is the worlds best rifle. Take it as a grain a salt.
As it seems, all of the examples given by posters here about the Tommys hating their SA80 weapons have been BEFORE the improved engineering. Same situation as the M16 and it's birth. The M16 was improved much more quickly because it was at war, the SA80 took a few small firefights in the Gulf War and similar situations in Sierra Leone before the problems were seriously addressed. The same hateful comments were given by our GIs in Vietnam about our M16, and today we do have one of the top rifles in the world. With the improved engineering, maybe the SA80 will join the ranks. I for one, and willing to wait this out and give it a chance. What's with all the Brit bashing anyway? JRB |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 6:30:03 AM EDT
[#40]
Hey, maybe they will buy back my 900 rounds of under powered SS109 that they surplused?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 7:55:14 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: ["Do what you will, just remember that the British aren't known for their impressive mechanical skill." "I understand that the only reason the British don't manufacture televisions is that they have yet to devise a way to make them leak oil."--Frustrated Jaguar Owner |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 8:41:40 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Uh, since when did an M16 weigh 12 lbs? Actually JANES lists it as 12 lbs, 12 oz. - unloaded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 8:48:54 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: Uh, since when did an M16 weigh 12 lbs? Actually JANES lists it as 12 lbs, 12 oz. - unloaded. Well Janes must have idiots that work there now. Did they fire the fact checkers or something? Anybody who has actually HELD the rifle could tell you that is wrong. And its very easy to check on. Geeze I dont think the M16A2 with M203 is 12.75 lbs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 6:13:09 PM EDT
[#44]
About the only thing the SA80 has incommon with the Armalite AR18 / 180 is a rotary multi-lug bolt ( borrowed from the 1941 Johnson ) and a similiar bolt carrier and twin guide rods.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 6:18:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Of course they claim that it is the most reliable....their British
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 6:26:16 PM EDT
[#46]
Without saying anything further, the rifle is SHIT! Carried it. Used it. Its crap!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 8:37:00 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Uh, since when did an M16 weigh 12 lbs? Actually JANES lists it as 12 lbs, 12 oz. - unloaded. in my JANES guide to firearms, all weight is listed in metric. i dont recall what the metric weight of the M16a2 is. just thought i'd contribute. [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 8:40:15 PM EDT
[#48]
Which British gentleman designed the Sterling SMG? is it a halfway decent firearm?
Did'nt the British design the Webley? i thought that it was an interesting weapon. would not buy one though. Dont forget the Spitfire fighter plane...or was that designed by somebody else too [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2001 9:05:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Which British gentleman designed the Sterling SMG? is it a halfway decent firearm? Did'nt the British design the Webley? i thought that it was an interesting weapon. would not buy one though. Dont forget the Spitfire fighter plane...or was that designed by somebody else too [:D] The Sterling was developed from the Sten by a guy named Patchett. It was first known as the Patchett Carbine. A batch of 100, identifiable by their wooden butstocks and perforated heat shield surrounding the barrel, were taken by the 1st Airborne Division to Arnhim in 1944. They were all lost but the Paras that used them said they were a big improvement over the Sten. England was so broke and there were so many Stens around that they purchased no more of the type for 9 years! There is only ONE picture extant of the Patchett, a action shot of Paras in Oosterbeeke I saw it in one of Ian Hoggs books. Cant remember if it had the curved magazine at that stage. Webleys were good DA revolvers except for their inability to handle a cartridge that developed more than black powder level pressures. The Webley Fosbury autococking revolver and the Webley/Scott autoloading pistols are best forgotten. The .455 Webley/Scott Automatic cartridge was a powerhouse and the 5000 odd Colt Goverment Models built in that caliber for the Royal Navy were awsome. 255gr FMJRN at 750fps vs 230gr FMJRN at 800fps. But what do you expect when the government does everything it can to hinder the development of a domestic firearms industry and a healty peace time market for arms? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2001 2:37:06 AM EDT
[#50]
In SWA, some RM were trying to trade us oue M16A2 for their IWs, they didn't like them in the desert. The RM that came to Camp Lejeune in 1998 drew US ammo from our ASP, so I have to assume since they shot M855 that the rifle can take it.
A laoding M16A2 with loading M203 would probably be 12 lbs, but basic rifle is no were near that weight. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
