The SA80 "under fire" again

**tropper66** · 28-10-2009, 09:48

Most people dont know but it was the British Army who first used the 5.56 mm in 1961 when 10,000 AR15/M16s were obtained from Colt for use by the Gurkhas and other troops stationed outside Nato,

**mac1** · 28-10-2009, 09:49

I know muzzle energy isn't the whole story, but given that 7.62 x 51 is twice as powerful as 5.56, there's going to be SOME difference in effectiveness surely?

**Geordie_Blerk** · 28-10-2009, 09:50

Originally Posted by Recce19

Originally Posted by Geordie_Blerk

I'm looking forward to the input from the usal posters on the Shooting forum. They will spout endless drivel about the SLR being a manstopper and the A2 rifle not being fit for purpose. The irony being that they have not fired either rifle for "real".

No you're right, the SLR has never been fired in anger.

I stated that "THEY" had not fired either weapon for real.

Thanks for that, now can I see your penis please?

**Powerslave** · 28-10-2009, 09:52

Originally Posted by mac1

I know muzzle energy isn't the whole story, but given that 7.62 x 51 is twice as powerful as 5.56, there's going to be SOME difference in effectiveness surely?

I don't understand why this is coming out now. As stated above, the bullets from the SLR will go through anything and anything behind it.
That would mean that any Taliban/AQ shot at would also very likely kill/injure some 'innocent' bystander. That just won't do, old horse. McChrystal has insisted, time and time again, no collateral damage!

**tropper66** · 28-10-2009, 09:53

The 5.56 was meant to be a light automatic for jungle use at ranges below 300m, not 300 to 900m as now

**Semper_Flexibilis** · 28-10-2009, 09:59

Originally Posted by scoobydont

Bring back the SLR.
The old and bold will tell you; It was big and heavy and cumbersome, but you knew it would do the bizz and it could stop an elephant at half a mile.

Not so, I was shooting an SLR last week, it actually weighs less than the current togged up version of the SA80.

**Semper_Flexibilis** · 28-10-2009, 10:03

Originally Posted by eveyoz

Isn't the SA80 still prone to stoppages in 'stan?

Dunno, but I'll bet you $$$$ to donuts an SLR wouldn't be. :D

**wet_blobby** · 28-10-2009, 10:06

It weighed less than the SA80 when it was first introduced, OK, ammo weighed more but when you need less what's the problem?

**tropper66** · 28-10-2009, 10:10

Originally Posted by wet_blobby

It weighed less than the SA80 when it was first introduced, OK, ammo weighed more but when you need less what's the problem?

The only fault was that every time you stripped a SLR you cocked up your sighting, but with some of the state of the art sights now avalable I think it would be the dogs at quite long range

**Semper_Flexibilis** · 28-10-2009, 10:13

Originally Posted by tropper66

Originally Posted by wet_blobby

It weighed less than the SA80 when it was first introduced, OK, ammo weighed more but when you need less what's the problem?

The only fault was that every time you stripped a SLR you cocked up your sighting, but with some of the state of the art sights now avalable I think it would be the dogs at quite long range

Well one things for sure, if you were 600 yds downrange of me and I was chucking 7.62 rounds in your direction, you'd be left in no doubt I was cross with you even if I was missing. :D

**tropper66** · 28-10-2009, 10:19

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by tropper66

Originally Posted by wet_blobby

It weighed less than the SA80 when it was first introduced, OK, ammo weighed more but when you need less what's the problem?

The only fault was that every time you stripped a SLR you cocked up your sighting, but with some of the state of the art sights now avalable I think it would be the dogs at quite long range

Well one things for sure, if you were 600 yds downrange of me and I was chucking 7.62 rounds in your direction, you'd be left in no doubt I was cross with you even if I was missing. :D

I got a right bolliking for putting a "Single Point" sight on mine in Belfast, then it was wicked at more than 600m, there was a big hoo haa and we were forced to take them off and ths QM paid me the cash for it

**wet_blobby** · 28-10-2009, 10:28

Who were you firing at six hundred metres away in Belfast, the Luftwaffe?

**Gravelbelly** · 28-10-2009, 10:29

Originally Posted by tropper66

The only fault was that every time you stripped a SLR you cocked up your sighting

Myth. It would take a seriously sh*gged-out hinge pin to achieve that, i.e. the Armourer wasn't pulling their weight. I was in a unit shooting team, I used to clean mine regularly, and the zero never changed.

Oh - and as a "usual suspect on the shooting forum", I'm obviously weird. I liked SLR, but I liked the SA80 more.

**tropper66** · 28-10-2009, 10:32

Originally Posted by wet_blobby

Who were you firing at six hundred metres away in Belfast, the Luftwaffe?

Up Castle street

**tropper66** · 28-10-2009, 10:36

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

Originally Posted by tropper66

The only fault was that every time you stripped a SLR you cocked up your sighting

Myth. It would take a seriously sh*gged-out hinge pin to achieve that, i.e. the Armourer wasn't pulling their weight. I was in a unit shooting team, I used to clean mine regularly, and the zero never changed.

Oh - and as a "usual suspect on the shooting forum", I'm obviously weird. I liked SLR, but I liked the SA80 more.

So was I and have fired SLR at Bisley but I would always re zero if posible after stripping even if just a few rounds down the pipe range
In Civvi shoots I used an M14 just because of this reason, and I liked the wood