Bear in the air
Discussion
ecsrobin
What do you mean an SA 80?
Firstly SA80 is a family of weapons. Hint: It stands for Small Arms 1980 and includes the L85A3 (the IW), L86A2 (the LSW) and L98A2 (The Cadet GP Rifle) amongst others.
Secondly to claim that 800m is double the range of the SA80 family is, quite frankly, buying in to the negative hype.
From the PAM 5: L85/L98 are effective in Section Fire out to 600m. L86 is effective out to 800m in single shot fire.
To anyone trained on the L85 fitted with a SUSAT then it is individually effective to 600m.
Furthermore, while there are (quite serious) limitations to the 5.56 x 45 mm round the SA80 family are inherently more accurate than was the L1A1 Self Loadin Rifle (SLR) and the L4 LMG.
What do you mean an SA 80?
Firstly SA80 is a family of weapons. Hint: It stands for Small Arms 1980 and includes the L85A3 (the IW), L86A2 (the LSW) and L98A2 (The Cadet GP Rifle) amongst others.
Secondly to claim that 800m is double the range of the SA80 family is, quite frankly, buying in to the negative hype.
From the PAM 5: L85/L98 are effective in Section Fire out to 600m. L86 is effective out to 800m in single shot fire.
To anyone trained on the L85 fitted with a SUSAT then it is individually effective to 600m.
Furthermore, while there are (quite serious) limitations to the 5.56 x 45 mm round the SA80 family are inherently more accurate than was the L1A1 Self Loadin Rifle (SLR) and the L4 LMG.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
ecsrobin
What do you mean an SA 80?
Firstly SA80 is a family of weapons. Hint: It stands for Small Arms 1980 and includes the L85A3 (the IW), L86A2 (the LSW) and L98A2 (The Cadet GP Rifle) amongst others.
Secondly to claim that 800m is double the range of the SA80 family is, quite frankly, buying in to the negative hype.
From the PAM 5: L85/L98 are effective in Section Fire out to 600m. L86 is effective out to 800m in single shot fire.
To anyone trained on the L85 fitted with a SUSAT then it is individually effective to 600m.
Furthermore, while there are (quite serious) limitations to the 5.56 x 45 mm round the SA80 family are inherently more accurate than was the L1A1 Self Loadin Rifle (SLR) and the L4 LMG.
Aye, but what about this...?What do you mean an SA 80?
Firstly SA80 is a family of weapons. Hint: It stands for Small Arms 1980 and includes the L85A3 (the IW), L86A2 (the LSW) and L98A2 (The Cadet GP Rifle) amongst others.
Secondly to claim that 800m is double the range of the SA80 family is, quite frankly, buying in to the negative hype.
From the PAM 5: L85/L98 are effective in Section Fire out to 600m. L86 is effective out to 800m in single shot fire.
To anyone trained on the L85 fitted with a SUSAT then it is individually effective to 600m.
Furthermore, while there are (quite serious) limitations to the 5.56 x 45 mm round the SA80 family are inherently more accurate than was the L1A1 Self Loadin Rifle (SLR) and the L4 LMG.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
ecsrobin
What do you mean an SA 80?
Firstly SA80 is a family of weapons. Hint: It stands for Small Arms 1980 and includes the L85A3 (the IW), L86A2 (the LSW) and L98A2 (The Cadet GP Rifle) amongst others.
Secondly to claim that 800m is double the range of the SA80 family is, quite frankly, buying in to the negative hype.
From the PAM 5: L85/L98 are effective in Section Fire out to 600m. L86 is effective out to 800m in single shot fire.
To anyone trained on the L85 fitted with a SUSAT then it is individually effective to 600m.
Furthermore, while there are (quite serious) limitations to the 5.56 x 45 mm round the SA80 family are inherently more accurate than was the L1A1 Self Loadin Rifle (SLR) and the L4 LMG.
I really would not want to rely on the l86 at 800m while it might punch a hole in paper at that range I would not expect it to drop a man at that range reliably which is why it was replaced by the L129A1What do you mean an SA 80?
Firstly SA80 is a family of weapons. Hint: It stands for Small Arms 1980 and includes the L85A3 (the IW), L86A2 (the LSW) and L98A2 (The Cadet GP Rifle) amongst others.
Secondly to claim that 800m is double the range of the SA80 family is, quite frankly, buying in to the negative hype.
From the PAM 5: L85/L98 are effective in Section Fire out to 600m. L86 is effective out to 800m in single shot fire.
To anyone trained on the L85 fitted with a SUSAT then it is individually effective to 600m.
Furthermore, while there are (quite serious) limitations to the 5.56 x 45 mm round the SA80 family are inherently more accurate than was the L1A1 Self Loadin Rifle (SLR) and the L4 LMG.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
ecsrobin
What do you mean an SA 80?
Firstly SA80 is a family of weapons. Hint: It stands for Small Arms 1980 and includes the L85A3 (the IW), L86A2 (the LSW) and L98A2 (The Cadet GP Rifle) amongst others.
Secondly to claim that 800m is double the range of the SA80 family is, quite frankly, buying in to the negative hype.
From the PAM 5: L85/L98 are effective in Section Fire out to 600m. L86 is effective out to 800m in single shot fire.
To anyone trained on the L85 fitted with a SUSAT then it is individually effective to 600m.
Furthermore, while there are (quite serious) limitations to the 5.56 x 45 mm round the SA80 family are inherently more accurate than was the L1A1 Self Loadin Rifle (SLR) and the L4 LMG.
Apologies to everyone for my barrack talk. Ask anyone on camp except for possibly a weapons instructor then they will call it an SA80 or more probably from the ladies a gun or the young lads a shooter the older lads a rifle. But ask them what it is and it's an SA80. What do you mean an SA 80?
Firstly SA80 is a family of weapons. Hint: It stands for Small Arms 1980 and includes the L85A3 (the IW), L86A2 (the LSW) and L98A2 (The Cadet GP Rifle) amongst others.
Secondly to claim that 800m is double the range of the SA80 family is, quite frankly, buying in to the negative hype.
From the PAM 5: L85/L98 are effective in Section Fire out to 600m. L86 is effective out to 800m in single shot fire.
To anyone trained on the L85 fitted with a SUSAT then it is individually effective to 600m.
Furthermore, while there are (quite serious) limitations to the 5.56 x 45 mm round the SA80 family are inherently more accurate than was the L1A1 Self Loadin Rifle (SLR) and the L4 LMG.
However my WHT (weapons handling test) has recently expired so I'll let you talk the numbers on my behalf.
ecsrobin said:
Apologies to everyone for my barrack talk. Ask anyone on camp except for possibly a weapons instructor then they will call it an SA80 or more probably from the ladies a gun or the young lads a shooter the older lads a rifle. But ask them what it is and it's an SA80.
However my WHT (weapons handling test) has recently expired so I'll let you talk the numbers on my behalf.
why oh why would the view of an ex crab trump the view of a ex pongo? I mean if I wanted to know the operating envelope of something crab air flys sure ask a pilot but bang sticks? really?However my WHT (weapons handling test) has recently expired so I'll let you talk the numbers on my behalf.
I never once saw a crab sleeping with their personal weapon the hotels tend to moan about ripped sheets
where as infanteers tend to cozy up nice and close quite regularly
I started off on 303 in cadets moving up to the cold war deterrent that was the 7.62 before downgrading to the .22 they use now and now it seems the powers that be are drifting back to a proper sized round.
Dr Jekyll said:
Condi said:
The Bear first flew in 1952, and entered service in 1956. Its expected to remain in service until 2040, which is an active life of nearly 85 years. Are there any other bits of kit in recent times (ie not swords and shields!) which have been in service that long? Thats like using HMS Hood in a modern naval battle.
<snip>The B52 entered service slightly before the Bear, don't know how long they are intended to stay in service for though.
citizensm1th said:
I started off on 303 in cadets moving up to the cold war deterrent that was the 7.62 before downgrading to the .22 they use now and now it seems the powers that be are drifting back to a proper sized round.
I can't imagine why; there's plenty of research suggesting a compromise round of 6-7mm would offer most of the range the full size rifle round while giving a light enough round to allow a decent amount of ammo to be carried without hobbling the squaddies. Have a look at a report titled 'Biting the bullet' about rifle round choices. Of course the politicians may stick their oar in and f
k it up again, but that's their prerogative.hidetheelephants said:
I can't imagine why; there's plenty of research suggesting a compromise round of 6-7mm would offer most of the range the full size rifle round while giving a light enough round to allow a decent amount of ammo to be carried without hobbling the squaddies. Have a look at a report titled 'Biting the bullet' about rifle round choices. Of course the politicians may stick their oar in and fk it up again, but that's their prerogative.
well we proposed a 6-7mm round (the British) but as per normal nato ended up gong with the septic option of 5.56mm.k it up again, but that's their prerogative.the thing with a 5.56 mm round is that in a mainly urban western European theatre of war it would probably be a very good option (and this is the theatre it was designed for)
but when your enemy decides not to play by the rules your trying to impose and stands off at a distance beyond your weapons effective range as they did in afghan you have to have something that can reach out and touch them
Halmyre said:
An ex-army colleague says the theory behind the smaller 5.6 round was that wounded combatants are a larger burden to opposing forces than dead combatants, hence a smaller round intended to maim rather than kill. The added benefit is that you could carry more of the smaller rounds.
Indeed that was the mantra at the time, and holds sway if you are in a nice, both sides playing the game, traditional army vs. army war.However, as has been the case for the past decade plus, when your opposition is a fanatical one and doesn't really give a feck about it's own wounded - you need to just drop them as quickly as possible.
And being able to carry more ammo is pointless when you are having to expend a lot more of it to get the desired result.
As ever the Germans got it about right with the Russians copying the idea for the next 70 years.
Halmyre said:
An ex-army colleague says the theory behind the smaller 5.6 round was that wounded combatants are a larger burden to opposing forces than dead combatants, hence a smaller round intended to maim rather than kill. The added benefit is that you could carry more of the smaller rounds.
How much does the damage depend on the size of the bullet as opposed to the size of the cartridge?I'd have thought that a smaller lighter round would go correspondingly faster from the same sized cartridge therefore at first approximation do the same amount of damage.
Dr Jekyll said:
How much does the damage depend on the size of the bullet as opposed to the size of the cartridge?
I'd have thought that a smaller lighter round would go correspondingly faster from the same sized cartridge therefore at first approximation do the same amount of damage.
Passes straight through and if it doesn't hit anything vital.....I'd have thought that a smaller lighter round would go correspondingly faster from the same sized cartridge therefore at first approximation do the same amount of damage.
I seem to recall when the septics first got involved in Vietnam on the ground with the early M16's, they ended up changing the ammo and/or rifling in the weapons as they found the 5.56 rounds were tumbling after a certain distance and causing nasty tissue damage - all very non-PC back in the sixties
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff