back to 7.62 ?
Discussion
Papa Hotel said:
GC8 said:
Must have been difficult for Marines LCs, tankies and mortars whose job involved getting soaked in their pal's piss and getting a ladyboy to ejaculate inside them while half cut.
I've corrected your post. Marines: they love bodily fluids.
dai1983 said:
Papa Hotel said:
GC8 said:
Must have been difficult for Marines LCs, tankies and mortars whose job involved getting soaked in their pal's piss and getting a ladyboy to ejaculate inside them while half cut.
I've corrected your post. Marines: they love bodily fluids.
Papa Hotel said:
slideways said:
Ok maybe they have sorted all the faults it had but it's taken 20 years,
26!The SA80 has its critics, and mostly fair enough. However, it is very accurate, has as near to no recoil as you'll get in an assault rifle and reliability problems have mostly been ironed out. I always felt it a reassuringly solid piece of kit, the big problem is the feeble rounds.
Edited by rumple on Sunday 15th July 09:52
JMGS4 said:
The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean
I reckon, even after twenty-odd years, I could still strip one down. Blindfolded. In under a minute.It was a heavy old bang stick though. We used to trog around RAF Honington carrying the SLR, four twenty-round magazines in the webbing, often an SLP too with a couple of mags, a flack jacket made of concrete, respirator and a wet beret (dipped in the EWS to keep us cool in the sweltering East Anglian Summer).
I swear my kit doubled my body-weight.
Just before I left the "user pool" for the dear old SLR I remember a lot of journalistic stuff about SA80 "coming along soon", exciting times.
I got the impression that the journos of the day were concerned about the too short development time.
I'm glad the uprated weapon is rated OK by its users, the only people whose opinions matter, but it seems that the term clusterf
k was defined by it.
I got the impression that the journos of the day were concerned about the too short development time.
I'm glad the uprated weapon is rated OK by its users, the only people whose opinions matter, but it seems that the term clusterf
k was defined by it.Tango13 said:
Just to bump this one.
The original mk1 SA80 was considered a bit rubbish but the updated version is a very good bit of kit, were the problems down to penny pinching and political meddling or poor design?
Depends if you favour a tinfoil hat; there were much better alternatives when the decision was being made. The Heckler & Koch and the Steyr offerings were vastly superior; a licence-built version of either, while more expensive up front would have saved a huge amount of money over the life of the system(an amusing irony being BAE bought H&K not that long afterward and H&K got the job of making the SA80 into a useable weapon). Politically there was pressure to buy british, but the SLR was a licenced design so the precedent was there and RSAF Enfield would have had the job of building them regardless of which design was picked. Back handers? You decide.The original mk1 SA80 was considered a bit rubbish but the updated version is a very good bit of kit, were the problems down to penny pinching and political meddling or poor design?
EF sensitive lockies.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 16th July 18:41
dai1983 said:
I'm not happy unless ive got the gpmg and at least 800 link, I love it! My idea of hell is the minimi!
I'm guessing the GPMG is a MAG58 type gun? Am curious why you say that as I would say the opposite. They both seemed reliable enough but my tired lazy arse prefered the minimi every day of the week. 
Tango13 said:
Just to bump this one.The original mk1 SA80 was considered a bit rubbish but the updated version is a very good bit of kit, were the problems down to penny pinching and political meddling or poor design?
Not only poor design (designed down to a price!) but penny pinching purchasers and politicos with gold-plated pensions in stehall.....Apart from CQB feckin useless......try plinking a tali at over 500m with that crap....
My Bren could lay down fire at 1200m and (innacurately) keep their heads down, but really accurate to 800-1000m without trouble. SLR was excellent at 5-600m for any soldier, the really good guys could use it at longer ranges.
I'd rather hump a few kilos of heavy accurate metal than a weapon that is useless in the open field at longer ranges. Keep 'em well at arms length and they have more trouble picking you off....
dmulally said:
I'm guessing the GPMG is a MAG58 type gun? Am curious why you say that as I would say the opposite. They both seemed reliable enough but my tired lazy arse prefered the minimi every day of the week.
Yeah thats a GPMG. Minimi is more awkward to carry, is unreliable and a bd to clean. Seen it have constant stoppages on the range and blank firing that I wouldnt feel comfortable on the ground. With the "General" you know its gonna fire and it makes me feel the boss carrying it. Sorry for getting all Full Metal Jacket but it gives me a hardon!Sure its heavy but given the choice of a Gpmg and a thousand rounds with a rifle and ECM weighing the same, I'll take the gun. You only hang out for a while until you get so a suitable fire support position anyway. Firing from the shoulder takes some strength tho.
dai1983 said:
dmulally said:
I'm guessing the GPMG is a MAG58 type gun? Am curious why you say that as I would say the opposite. They both seemed reliable enough but my tired lazy arse prefered the minimi every day of the week.
Yeah thats a GPMG. Minimi is more awkward to carry, is unreliable and a bd to clean. Seen it have constant stoppages on the range and blank firing that I wouldnt feel comfortable on the ground. With the "General" you know its gonna fire and it makes me feel the boss carrying it. Sorry for getting all Full Metal Jacket but it gives me a hardon!Sure its heavy but given the choice of a Gpmg and a thousand rounds with a rifle and ECM weighing the same, I'll take the gun. You only hang out for a while until you get so a suitable fire support position anyway. Firing from the shoulder takes some strength tho.
Best part about being a gunner though was getting the best watch times at night.
The Assault rifle the Army signed up for was the Enfield EM2. It was designed to use the .280 round which is where the current thinking is regarding a replacement for the 5.56mm. Unfortunately it wasn't "big" enough for the US which is where the 7.62mm came in. Ironically they then decided it was too heavy and went for the 5.56mm which was smaller than the .280 (7mm). Given it used Enfield Internals whereas the SA80 used the design of the AR18 which had already proved "fragile" in use perhaps they wished they had gone back to the EM series of rifles.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/new-rifle-test-f...
Tests of the EM-2 and Prototype .280 Machine gun.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/new-rifle-test-f...
Tests of the EM-2 and Prototype .280 Machine gun.
Edited by telecat on Monday 16th July 09:41
Edited by telecat on Monday 16th July 09:45
dai1983 said:
Yeah thats a GPMG. Minimi is more awkward to carry, is unreliable and a bd to clean. Seen it have constant stoppages on the range and blank firing that I wouldnt feel comfortable on the ground. With the "General" you know its gonna fire and it makes me feel the boss carrying it. Sorry for getting all Full Metal Jacket but it gives me a hardon!
Sure its heavy but given the choice of a Gpmg and a thousand rounds with a rifle and ECM weighing the same, I'll take the gun. You only hang out for a while until you get so a suitable fire support position anyway. Firing from the shoulder takes some strength tho.
You are Animal Mother and I claim my free prize!d to clean. Seen it have constant stoppages on the range and blank firing that I wouldnt feel comfortable on the ground. With the "General" you know its gonna fire and it makes me feel the boss carrying it. Sorry for getting all Full Metal Jacket but it gives me a hardon!Sure its heavy but given the choice of a Gpmg and a thousand rounds with a rifle and ECM weighing the same, I'll take the gun. You only hang out for a while until you get so a suitable fire support position anyway. Firing from the shoulder takes some strength tho.
JMGS4 said:
In my experience the SA80 is one of the worst firearms the Army ever bought (I was in at the introduction). It jammed, was difficult to strip and clean and was totally unreliable and innacurate. It may have improved now, but somehow I doubt it as when I have the adoo shooting at me I don't want a weapon that is ineffective over 200m when they're using AK47 or larger!
The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I concur - I too remember the intoduction of the SA80 and have been issued both weapons. Although it should be noted that the revisions to the SA80 have made an improvement to it (although I left before the revisions were intoduced and only have the account of others). My unit had an exchange program with the US Army so I had opportunity to use the M16 when I went over there - now that's what we should have been issued with all along.The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I have no idea what prompted the MOD to design it's own weapon (SA80) from scratch - although I can guess someone made a killing out of the contract...
Isnt the SA80 the b*stard son of an AR-18 and a 7mm British bullpup design from the 1950s?
Im sure I read (years ago) that it borrows very heavily from the Armalite design. This must have made for a fairly cheap alternative to buying in Colt or FN rifles, licensing them, or however theyd have gone about it.
Im sure I read (years ago) that it borrows very heavily from the Armalite design. This must have made for a fairly cheap alternative to buying in Colt or FN rifles, licensing them, or however theyd have gone about it.
Tango13 said:
Just to bump this one.
The original mk1 SA80 was considered a bit rubbish but the updated version is a very good bit of kit, were the problems down to penny pinching and political meddling or poor design?
It was most certainly not poor design, the design principles ahd been established for years.The original mk1 SA80 was considered a bit rubbish but the updated version is a very good bit of kit, were the problems down to penny pinching and political meddling or poor design?
It was the moving of the goal posts, continually changing the spec.
There has always been penny-pinching, to the extent that the bean counters were controlling trials plans in order to cut back on expenditure.
GC8 said:
Isnt the SA80 the b*stard son of an AR-18 and a 7mm British bullpup design from the 1950s?
Im sure I read (years ago) that it borrows very heavily from the Armalite design. This must have made for a fairly cheap alternative to buying in Colt or FN rifles, licensing them, or however theyd have gone about it.
Reading Wikipedia, the author has said something similar. This doesnt make it right of course, but I knew that I hadnt made it up.Im sure I read (years ago) that it borrows very heavily from the Armalite design. This must have made for a fairly cheap alternative to buying in Colt or FN rifles, licensing them, or however theyd have gone about it.
voicey said:
JMGS4 said:
In my experience the SA80 is one of the worst firearms the Army ever bought (I was in at the introduction). It jammed, was difficult to strip and clean and was totally unreliable and innacurate. It may have improved now, but somehow I doubt it as when I have the adoo shooting at me I don't want a weapon that is ineffective over 200m when they're using AK47 or larger!
The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I concur - I too remember the intoduction of the SA80 and have been issued both weapons. Although it should be noted that the revisions to the SA80 have made an improvement to it (although I left before the revisions were intoduced and only have the account of others). My unit had an exchange program with the US Army so I had opportunity to use the M16 when I went over there - now that's what we should have been issued with all along.The SLR was reliable, solid and relatively easy to clean even after a dunking in muddy and peaty water, also good in sandy conditions. We could lay down covering fire effective at ranges of 500+ m and some of our better guys could shoot a 95+ at 700m!
If you needed it for CQB we fitted a shorter barrel and the automatic switch (not general issue), this made it the best CQB weapon available at the time, better than the AK47 and all others. The only argument for the SA80 was the lighter ammo, thus easier to transport, and more shells for the same weight, but much less effective.
I have no idea what prompted the MOD to design it's own weapon (SA80) from scratch - although I can guess someone made a killing out of the contract...
Terminal ballistic effect is a function of the ammunition not the weapon that discharges it.
7.62mm has far more energy that 5.56mm at any range.
Too much uninformed opinion here, especially on the subject of SA80.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff