Thread: The SA80 "under fire" again

as has been said, that article is best ignored. but the debate does roll on! I think that each section should have a SLR type weapon such as a 417 in 7.62.

Originally Posted by vampireuk

Originally Posted by eveyoz

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

Yes, if you don't clean it.

Originally Posted by BaldBaBoon

Now is this a a squaddie urban myth or not?

When I was first trained on a SLR the instructor spieled off all the stuff that the SLR was exceptional at,and either these were correct or every single Unit small arms instructor I later met was in on the same conspiracy.

The SLR could fully penetrate a correctly compacted sandbag,lengthways.

A SLR could penetrate up to 18" of hard wood.

A SLR has a chance of penetrating the armour on a FV432 on the side or rear

FIBUA,the SLR could shoot through double brick walls at peeps hiding at the edge of windows/peepholes and could easily penetrate walls and floors/ceilings.

I never got the chance to try any of that,as I was given the comedy gun SMG when on tour.....are these correct ?

The Sandbag o' TRuth!


http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot7.htm

Okay, sure this has been done before but will throw in my half pence worth...

The 5.55mm SS109 ball round is designed to yaw and produce temporary and permanent cavities in the body after minimal penetration. After further penetration, because of the design of the bullet, it will probably tumble (or undergo extreme yaw) and possibly disintigrate.
Problems of over penetration are minimised because most of the kinetic energy is transfered to the target body thus causing extreme trauma. So much so that when the Russians introduced the AK-74 in Afghan it was initially suspected that they were using slightly 'modified' rounds.

The 7.62mm M80 ball round has a tendency to only undergo yaw in the target body after a considerable amount of penetration. Thus, less kinetic energy was imparted to the target and trauma was less (although you would still be a mess if one hit you).

Although the 7.62 round travels further before going subsonic and thus dramatically affecting its range (about 900m I think?)- furthermore that it is still capable of fulfilling the SF role above this range, the 5.56 round is more suitable for most modern battle ranges with a standard assault rifle. Yes, you could fit a 7.62 rifle with a better sight to engage beyond this range, but its general utility for the battle below these ranges would be compromised.

However I do seem to remember an article a couple of years back regarding the M4 used in the Blackhawk down scenario. Some Americans believed that targets were not dropping when hit because the shorter barrel of the M4 changed the muzzle velocity, thus changing the ballistics. The article stated that some special forces units of the Americans were changing to a different round for their M4's.

The Gov's current stand on defence spending makes this a redundant argument anyway! Everybody will be reduced to looking hard and yelling "bang, bang, bang" within the next year or two! Exceptions to the rule will be those armed with heavy machine guns who should adopt a more threatening outburst of.... "budda, budda, budda"!

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.

what about ireland and the falklands?? :S

Originally Posted by FR_Trooper

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.

what about ireland and the falklands?? :S

Jeeeeesus 'H' f*cking Chriiiiist, was 'breeder of thick c*nts' written in the 'Fathers Employment' box on your birth certificate ?

Originally Posted by FR_Trooper

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.

what about ireland and the falklands?? :S

FFS.

Originally Posted by FR_Trooper

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.

what about ireland and the falklands?? :S

That rolling-eye's smiley sometimes denotes sardonic humour. IOW, he's taking the pish out of the post above.

Tch, the youth of today...........

Originally Posted by Andy71

Originally Posted by kimmi851

Telegraphy Linky - size DOES matter

Taliban marksmen use powerful 7.62mm ammo for their AK47 machine guns, ..... Only one in four British, US and German troops has been issued with guns using 7.62mm ammunition.

Lets ignore the fact that 7.62 soviet is a totally different round to 7.62 NATO shall we.

It isn't even 7.62mm. In fact the bullet diameter of 7.62 NATO isn't for that matter! :D

Originally Posted by reni_77

Originally Posted by FR_Trooper

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.

what about ireland and the falklands?? :S

Jeeeeesus 'H' f*cking Chriiiiist, was 'breeder of thick c*nts' written in the 'Fathers Employment' box on your birth certificate ?

wtf?

I have NEVER fired my SLR in anger, never even been posted near the place.

Originally Posted by FR_Trooper

Originally Posted by reni_77

Originally Posted by FR_Trooper

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.

what about ireland and the falklands?? :S

Jeeeeesus 'H' f*cking Chriiiiist, was 'breeder of thick c*nts' written in the 'Fathers Employment' box on your birth certificate ?

wtf?

For the first time since I ripped my toenail out on the garage door I am utterly speechless........

Originally Posted by Doogonk

The Gov's current stand on defence spending makes this a redundant argument anyway! Everybody will be reduced to looking hard and yelling "bang, bang, bang" within the next year or two! Exceptions to the rule will be those armed with heavy machine guns who should adopt a more threatening outburst of.... "budda, budda, budda"!

please see my previous thread on throwing cylumes as tracer!

At the risk of being repetitive - or controversial - if you're going to suggest bringing back the SLR why not go the whole hog and revive the Lee-Enfield Mk4 .303?
I was out-gunned in Aden, by at least 250 yards, when using the SLR by the locals using WWII .303s. :(
The 5.56 Armalites we used in Borneo were OK (I've never seen a human/5.56 collision but they certainly worked on crocs, pigs and water buffalo), but most of the time the 12 bore Remington was preferred...