Taken direct from the Army/Mod website....

"SA80 A2 LSW has a heavier and longer barrel allowing greater muzzle velocity and accuracy than the standard SA80.

When fired from the integrated bipod and using the standard SUSAT sight, LSW is accurate and consistent. It is 95% reliable, better than any of its competitiors."

Well thats nice to know. Does it even have a competitor? I would have thought every other army in the world opts for some form of LMG.

www.army.mod.uk/equipm.../1461.aspx

Last edited by 2/51 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

That is unfortunately not 100% correct. We've got an LSW too, though I hear it's getting phased out again already in favour of the Minimi. We do still have our MG-3's as well though.

www.coltcanada.com/lsw-page.htm

Which bit of that's wrong? It does have a longer, heavier barrel, it is more accurate than the IW, it is very accurate on the bipod and as it works in exactly the same way as the IW it is reliable. It is stiff competition at its role, however...its role isn't and never should have been fire support. The L110A1 is far and away a better LMG; the LSW is a good designated marksman's rifle but a very poor support weapon. And thankfully that was realised a while ago.

Edited to add: as for 95% reliable, see TBBT's post here.

Plans are afoot for the LSW to be converted to a designated marksman weapon. Better optics, get rid of the fore-end and bipod and replace with the rail system like the A2 ( A2 and LSW fore-ends are not compatible). Mono-pod on the butt. The concept is certainly not new. FN had a bipod equipped, longer barrel varient years ago ( cannot remember the name), but does allow you to reach out a bit further. Longer barrel ( up to a point) will give greater velocity, so will carry further.

The LSW is very accurate. On the range. Now it's been re-engineered to A2 standard, it is very reliable. This doesn't stop it being a front-heavy, badly balanced and badly thought out piece of junk.

It appears to have been designed as a poor man's Bren, but gave up all the advantages of the heavier round and longer reach. It is almost a marksman's weapon, but not as good as a sniper rifle. It is almost an assault rifle, but bigger, clumsier, and heavier. It is almost a machine gun, but can't accept link ammunition.

It appears to have been a weapon designed to fit a role that never existed, or an attempt to build a weapon that could do many things equally badly, at which it is a triumphal success.

Not the Army's view but mine. Sooner the whole thing is thrown in the bin the better.

I would deny that it is "very accurate". Put a collimator in one, rest it on the bipod, then hold it offhand and look at the difference.

It wouldn't stand a chance in a straight up match against one of the AR 15-based DMR's that the spams are fielding now (a fine example of civilian developments benefiting the military, by the way).

Even if/when it is free-floated, it still suffers from poor ergonomics and a piss-poor trigger.

I don't know about that , but I can remember people knocking over figure elevens pretty consistently at 600 metres with it and that seemed quite good to me. I dare say there are better DMRs, but if I had to carry an SA80-type weapon tomorrow, I think I'd prefer the LSW to the rifle.

But I probably won't have to.

They got rid of the Bren becuase they realised that a magazine-fed support weapon wasn't a very good idea, then after the GPMG came the LSW, oh dear...

As noted, it's an OK range weapon. It suffers from the usual SA80 problem of poor fit with upper and lower body, meaning that the sight can be dead on, but the whole TMH is wobbling all over the place. That would seem to reduce its value as a marksmans weapon. My real gripe with it isn't the longer barrel. It's the great mass of cast iron under the barrel that the bipod fixes to, and which puts all the weight of the weapon to the front. I never used the Bren or LMG, but some of the old and bold might be able to tell us what the effective range was. i'm pretty sure it was over 600m.

95% reliable; does that mean that it fails to fire every 20 rds?

It is better than that. I have hit figure 12's at 800 meters. Once you had the point aim sorted after a couple of rounds it was bang, ting, bang, ting until the mag was empty.

But I probably won't have to.[/quote]

As noted, it's an OK range weapon. It suffers from the usual SA80 problem of poor fit with upper and lower body, meaning that the sight can be dead on, but the whole TMH is wobbling all over the place. That would seem to reduce its value as a marksmans weapon. My real gripe with it isn't the longer barrel. It's the great mass of cast iron under the barrel that the bipod fixes to, and which puts all the weight of the weapon to the front. I never used the Bren or LMG, but some of the old and bold might be able to tell us what the effective range was. i'm pretty sure it was over 600m.[/quote]

Thats the idea of having the alloy fore-end with a new bipod assembly, it doesn't wobble around. Also stops the notorious split groups. Trigger is a problem, being bull-pup theres a long transfer bar, could be worked on, but that would be down to cost.

[quote="stoatman"]I would deny that it is "very accurate". Put a collimator in one, rest it on the bipod, then hold it offhand and look at the difference.

if you try this you will see that it sufers " brewers droop" from the standing all its good for is spear parts

[quote="thecoops"]
Its a swine to fire standing, or in any position except prone, because of the balance problem. The weight up front makes it hard to maintain a point of aim, and taking the left hand away from the foregrip to do a magazine change etc throws the whole weight on the right hand, which has to clutch the weapon in a death grip which is tiring in the long run.

Not a firearms expert by a long chalk but used to be quite good with the BREN/LMG. It was certainly good out to 600m (but not much more), was very controllable and could put down a good weight of very accurate fire in 2 - 3 round bursts in the right hands, so virtually all rounds aimed.

It also was really a marksman's weapon rather than a support weapon and suffered from being magazine fed.

Some have said that it was too accurate, but it was certainly a pleasure to fire

Very slight diversion from the main question,but as you lot seem to know what you are talking about you may have the answer.

This has hopefully changed since I left in 2004,but at that time the actual training and use of LSW or infact any small arm in the Sappers was pretty poor.Totally by the book inflexiable teaching and not enough shooting being the main points then.

I had the great fortune of joining the Corps shooting team as an average shot but with lots of enthusiasm in the beginning.Once there we shot every avaliable weapon at all ranges and in all positions and leant how our point of aim differed from altering the firing stance.I used to shoot low left when kneeling for example.

From actually having fun when shooting and using the weapons in every possible way including auto,my actual ability as a shooter increased tenfold...especially with the LSW which i thought was a poor weapon until I realised it was me rather than the gun being crap.

Could better training make up for poor preformance of some weapons,especially the non-infantry boys and girls.....or shall I post this as a seperate question?

BaldBaBoon - You have it...

Training
Range time
Coaching (by someone who knows how to coach)

The SLR had its weight "up front" and so it was hard to maintain a point of aim for any length of time when standing; hence pokey drill. The answer is to train properly for the standing position, with a coach who knows what they're doing.

If you think the LSW requires a death grip to change magazines, how much fun do you think the SLR was? The answer was to tuck the butt into your armpit.

How easy is it to fire the GPMG from any position other than prone? Or the Bren? Or, for that matter, the Minimi?

I never used the SLR, but I would point out that it had a butt to stick under your armpit. The LSW doesn't. The other point is well taken. Since most of us train mainly with the rifle, the LSW comes as a nasty surprise when we get to use it. Developing Popeye-like arms just to fire that one particular weapon has gone out of fashion.

As I understand it, the other 'true' support weapons are often fired from the hip, or a braced,or prone position. I've rarely seen anyone try and fire in the standing unsupported position.

I find it telling that in almost all the weapon threads on Arrse, I can't find one supporting the LSW. It might be hiding, but is there anyone willing to say it's their favourite weapon?

The LSW is so good that my battalion haven't used it at all for at least 7 years. I haven't seen a LSW since before Telic 1.