SA80

[canuck123]

why would the British armed forces use the SA80 instead of a better rifle. Why not us the M16, or do what the canadians did and make a british modified varient of one. Ive heard that the SA80 is a piece of s**t. Also ive never seen a gun where the Mag thing is behind the trigger.

 

[Tartan_Terrier]

why would the British armed forces use the SA80 instead of a better rifle. Why not us the M16, or do what the canadians did and make a british modified varient of one. Ive heard that the SA80 is a piece of s**t. Also ive never seen a gun where the Mag thing is behind the trigger.

It's a real pleasure to read such a well informed post.

Move over Ian Skennerton, here comes canuck123!

 

[damo567]

I think the A2 version of the SA80 is a fantastic rifle and I have heard that from a number of sources from the RN and the Army.
I have experience with a number of different rifles including the diemaco C8 (the Canadian M16 you refer to) and the A2 really is up there in terms of performance !

 

[watch_and_shoot]

why would the British armed forces use the SA80 instead of a better rifle. Why not us the M16, or do what the canadians did and make a british modified varient of one. Ive heard that the SA80 is a piece of s**t. Also ive never seen a gun where the Mag thing is behind the trigger.

A gun? tut, tut. That would a rifle or a weapon mate - not a gun!!!

The magazine behind the trigger configuration, is called a bullpup. There have been other weapons like this, such as the Steyr AUG.
The Canadian weapon you refer to is the Diemaco C8 - In my opinion an excellent weapon (some think better than the M16). I believe they used to be used by 23 SAS, but dont know if that’s still the case.

With regards to the SA80 - the A1 version was a bag of shite and your right, we should have purchased a tried an tested weapon like the M16 instead of trying to build a better one. The new A2 version is an excellent rifle however. Reliable, accurate, SUSAT is excellent and nowhere near as prone to stoppages as the older model. The only drawback in my opinion is that its still a bit heavy - even worse if you have a UGL attached!!

Spenny

 

[noemis]

The only drawback in my opinion is that its still a bit heavy - even worse if you have a UGL attached!!

Spenny

C'mon!!! You're Marines not faggots!! Leave the toy guns to the Yanks!!

 

[SILVER_FOX]

I'm in agreement with the A2 Support Group. The weapon is excellent and pretty accurate in the hands of most (with a little training - obviously). Hell, even I can manage to hit the target with it repeatedly from 200 meters. I've used it regularly in the last six months and never known it to jam either.

SF

 

[Chalky]

The A2 is reliable, stable and accurate. Sure, it's a little heavy for an assault riffley, but it would be a less stable platform without the weight. The bullpup configuration also makes it ideal for all this OBUA malarkey as well, which means that entirely by accident we have a weapon slightly better suited to our current environment than most other forces.

Agreed about the weight with a UGL though. I swear my arms were a couple of centimetres longer after the last time I had my hands on one.

Also, if you're using the term 'gun' and 'mag thing' you're either a chromosome-gobbling spong in green who has been let loose on the internet or you're about 14 and think that 'Guns are cool, eh?!' in which case, haven't you got homework to be doing?

 

[noemis]

Also, if you're using the term 'gun' and 'mag thing' you're either a chromosome-gobbling spong in green who has been let loose on the internet or you're about 14 and think that 'Guns are cool, eh?!' in which case, haven't you got homework to be doing?

COOL!!! Welcome to RR!

I'm putting myself in the SA80A2 camp! Nothing wrong with it for what I need it for, I have no operational experience with it so will leave that to the others!

 

[nutty_bag]

why would the British armed forces use the SA80 instead of a better rifle. Why not us the M16, or do what the canadians did and make a british modified varient of one. Ive heard that the SA80 is a piece of s**t. Also ive never seen a gun where the Mag thing is behind the trigger.

A gun? tut, tut. That would a rifle or a weapon mate - not a gun!!!

The magazine behind the trigger configuration, is called a bullpup. There have been other weapons like this, such as the Steyr AUG.
The Canadian weapon you refer to is the Diemaco C8 - In my opinion an excellent weapon (some think better than the M16). I believe they used to be used by 23 SAS, but dont know if that’s still the case.With regards to the SA80 - the A1 version was a bag of shite and your right, we should have purchased a tried an tested weapon like the M16 instead of trying to build a better one. The new A2 version is an excellent rifle however. Reliable, accurate, SUSAT is excellent and nowhere near as prone to stoppages as the older model. The only drawback in my opinion is that its still a bit heavy - even worse if you have a UGL attached!!

Spenny

I havent used the SA80 A2 so i cant really give an opinion on it. I know that H&K got their hands on it and did something with the working parts and especially the magazine release catch. What the **** was going on with that!! nods losing magazines during section attacks and having to paracord said item to their denims. And more to the point, what was going on with those sub-standard magazines that we were issuing. Have they been improved?? Speak to me someone as the springs were shite and i generally loaded them with 26-28 rounds because of the fear of stoppages!! The SUSAT was prone to misting in sub zero temperatures so they got around that be using iron sights. The new gubbins that comes with the A2 looks a bit like an after thought to me so an opinion on that would be good.
Spenny, in the late 90's the said units highlighted above were issued with M16A2's for the use of. But a peak in their armoury would reveal a whole range of weopons for the use of. I dont know what they use now but i found it to be a good weopon in relation to the SA80 A1 bag of shite at the time.

 

[watch_and_shoot]

why would the British armed forces use the SA80 instead of a better rifle. Why not us the M16, or do what the canadians did and make a british modified varient of one. Ive heard that the SA80 is a piece of s**t. Also ive never seen a gun where the Mag thing is behind the trigger.

A gun? tut, tut. That would a rifle or a weapon mate - not a gun!!!

The magazine behind the trigger configuration, is called a bullpup. There have been other weapons like this, such as the Steyr AUG.
The Canadian weapon you refer to is the Diemaco C8 - In my opinion an excellent weapon (some think better than the M16). I believe they used to be used by 23 SAS, but dont know if that’s still the case.With regards to the SA80 - the A1 version was a bag of shite and your right, we should have purchased a tried an tested weapon like the M16 instead of trying to build a better one. The new A2 version is an excellent rifle however. Reliable, accurate, SUSAT is excellent and nowhere near as prone to stoppages as the older model. The only drawback in my opinion is that its still a bit heavy - even worse if you have a UGL attached!!

Spenny

I havent used the SA80 A2 so i cant really give an opinion on it. I know that H&K got their hands on it and did something with the working parts and especially the magazine release catch. What the **** was going on with that!! nods losing magazines during section attacks and having to paracord said item to their denims. And more to the point, what was going on with those sub-standard magazines that we were issuing. Have they been improved?? Speak to me someone as the springs were shite and i generally loaded them with 26-28 rounds because of the fear of stoppages!! The SUSAT was prone to misting in sub zero temperatures so they got around that be using iron sights. The new gubbins that comes with the A2 looks a bit like an after thought to me so an opinion on that would be good.
Spenny, in the late 90's the said units highlighted above were issued with M16A2's for the use of. But a peak in their armoury would reveal a whole range of weopons for the use of. I dont know what they use now but i found it to be a good weopon in relation to the SA80 A1 bag of shite at the time.

Alright NB
The A2 is a huge improvement to the A1 mate. From memory (so don’t quote me) a new cocking handle, gas parts, bolt/firing pin and magazine. It was tested against the M16, Steyr, AK etc in both range and field firing conditions and came out with top scores for reliability and accuracy.
I was the same with the old A1 magazine and always bombed up with 28 rounds to give the spring a bit of play. With the new magazine however its not a drama. The magazine catch has a guard around it now, but this was fitted on the first round of upgrades whilst the rifle was still the A1 version. I believe the problem was that without the guard, the magazine release catch would be accidently pressed against your R/H ammo pouch. Not good when you charge forward and get a stoppage after firing one round, only to find its due to your magazing being 15ft behind you!!
Also the re-shaping of the cocking handle helps massively in preventing stoppages upon ejection of the round. No changes to the SUSAT, so its either making do with the battle sight on top or iron sights in cold weather. Still a great bit of kit in the right conditions though.
It’s a vast improvement made by H&K, but it would have saved a fortune if we just invested in M16's in the first place. Tried and tested in most theatres of war, so why not stick with what you know works?

Spenny

 

[Scottish_Kiwi]

A2 is a great weapon, highly accurate and very reliable though i am yet to use it in the sand box or Norway i am confident it will do alright.

As for the upgrades it is basically a new weapon inside an old shell, HK redesigned almost everything they could and plonked it all back in the old case.

To what SF are using, I know the armouries at poole really are filled with everything you youngsters need to get rigor mortis of the pee-pee.
Recently training with the MLs they are almost all just opting for the A2s now which when teamed with the UGL and a few Minimis really gives a small unit a hell of a weight of fire.

There is my rambling tuppence.

K

 

[danny]

is the navy now using the A2 exclusivley or is it a mixture of A1 and A2?
i have only ever fired a weapon in basic training and im not sure wether it was A1 or A2.