Thread: The SA80 "under fire" again

Originally Posted by tropper66

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

Piffle.

I shoot the FAL/L1A1 several times a year & on a properly sat up rifle, any POI shift is unnoticeable. It's a 2MOA rifle at best with service ammunition.
I've shot 10mm mild steel plates at 200yds with 147gr 7.62 FMJ & 55gr 5.56 FMJ
Most of the 5.56 bullets penetrated.
Most of the 7.62 ones didn't.
That's NOT using NATO standard 62gr 5.56 SS109 with the steel penetrator either - just lead in a gilding metal jacket.

Most of the 5.56 bullets penetrated.
Most of the 7.62 ones didn't.


But penetration does not equal lethality. Cavitation and hydrostatic shock will be higher if the energy is transferred to the impacted body, rather than simply passing through.

Originally Posted by Bravo_Bravo

Most of the 5.56 bullets penetrated.
Most of the 7.62 ones didn't.


But penetration does not equal lethality. Cavitation and hydrostatic shock will be higher if the energy is transferred to the impacted body, rather than simply passing through.

I posted that more to counter the "wont go through a car door" claim by the article under dissection.
IMO we should be using expanding projectiles, as the Taliban aren't signatories to the Hague Conventions & therefore not protected by them.

Originally Posted by tropper66

Originally Posted by Bubbles_Barker

Originally Posted by tropper66

Originally Posted by wet_blobby

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

Up Castle street

I presume you missed the target?

Castle Street is only a couple of hundred yards long as I remember.

True but before they built the West link road you could pop one right up through Divis street to the bottom of the Falls road from check point at the junction of Queen Street Castle street

Hmm. I could have engaged at 1000m plus from Divis Tower OP.

But I didn't. Nobody did - just because you can see ~(ish) doesn't mean you can engage.

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

Originally Posted by FiveAlpha

Originally Posted by THEY_STOOD_IN_THE_DOOR

but what would i know - or anyone who's been out here recently - ON THE GROUND?

How dare you have an opinion on what the bobby is on the ground, especially if you've actually been there.

i know - well out of line!!
next i'll be asking why aint we issued body armour that doesnt kill more than it saves.....

or why did GB throw his H4H wrist band on the floor at kabual asa he got off the c130 from bast????

or did i really hear a senior polition say - "the army will just have to stop moaning and crying about helicopters - your not going to get more - your going to have to ust the roads".......

but these are only things a soldier on the ground may ask?

Did i miss that outrage bus?

Please tell me if I have the following wrong.

5.56 is issue because the Yanks adopted it and NATO followed.
The Kalashnikov round is a bit of a lethal joke over 300 mtrs.
5.56 was designed as a close quarter round say out to 300 mts as WWII and later experience said most engagements take place at under this distance.
The SA 80 was a Bullpup weapon for the small size required for AFV warfare.
We already have a .338 caliber weapon in service capable of dealing with any Long Range engagements.

john

Originally Posted by Drlligaf

Originally Posted by OldAdam

Suppose it all depends on which 7.62mm round they're talking about - if they even understand the difference!

They have a choice - For instance... OA dons anorak

7.62 x 39 M1943 as used in AK47/AKMS/RPD, etc; okay up to 300 metres, then forget any serious attempt at marksmanship. The PS bullet has a mild steel core which can often be seen printing a perfect profile in targets even at close range, suggesting that they may break up on leaving the muzzle - depends on the manufacturer. Still hurts, though!

7,62 x 54R (Rimmed) - (1930 Type 'D' bullet) as used in PKM/Dragunov and various older MMGs, a highly effective and accurate round out to 900 metres and beyond.

7.62 x 51 (Nato), highly effective and accurate round out to normal combat ranges with a rifle and equals the 7.62 x 54R as an MG round out to 900 metres and beyond.

Then, of course, just to sow a little confusion in the journalistic mind, we can add the 7.62 Tokarev, 7.62 x 25 (Model 30), which is, of course, a PISTOL round! :D

Stows anorak away for another day

At the risk of being referred to a as a pedantic KOS, you forgot 7.62x45, an obsolete Czech round that fell victim to Uncle Stalins NIH policy. More effective than 7.62x39 but a bit short of 7.62 Nato .

Aw, shucks! Sorry, I forgot that one.

According to Labbett they redesigned it, going from being 7.5mm to 7.62, (actual bullet diameter being 7.85mm, same as the 7.62 x 39 M1943 - [confusing, isn't it? :D ]) presumably to bring it nominally in line with the rest of the Warsaw Pact - Don't know why they bothered?

Oh, yes; just to sow a little more nomenclaturial havoc, may I draw the reader's attention to the Swiss 7.5 x 55 and the French 7.5 x 54 MAS, both of which are nominally 7.62... :D

Originally Posted by tropper66

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.

I recall a Black taxi that had been shot up by 7,62, the rounds had gone through the boot, back seat, the passenger , the bulkhead,the front seat ,the driver, out through the bonnet and on up the street, I dont think a 556 would do that,I know the Mini 14 I had a few years ago would not

You were shooting at Taxis a few years ago with a Mini-14?

Your not a Croation named Gregory are you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHYC4ekzg60

I do believe The Scum newspaper was calling for air rifles to be banned not that long ago as they where "lethal", "dangerous" "a threat to life"...hmmmm..so now the L85 is not as lethal as my old Airarms Tx200?

Second point, could be wrong on this, but the marksman we had in our company where eqipped with L96 rifles. Last time i fired one it was 7.62, so on that front, we are no different to them (I bet Nick Griffen could not say that ;)) and probably somewhat better off due to training, superior ammunition and sights.

I started off my military career with SLR's..loved them. I used M16's in Brunei, where your vision was around 15 metres in the jungle, if you where lucky (often much less) and I was extremely excited when I got my hands in a L85.

The L85s history goes right back to the 1940's (bullpup design), its development in the 60's (calibre, round efficientcy), when a British soldier was expected to be fighting Soviet troops face to face on the streets of Berlin or sat in tha back of a 432 waiting for a nuck strike, and was trialled in 1975/6 and rolled out when the Cold War was still on and the majority of British Troops where seeing action on the streets of Northern Ireland where a 7.62 could cause considerable collateral damage.

For what it was designed for, I don't think the L85 can be bettered.

Because "our" enemy has changed means things need adapting. Tactics need to change, which they have, larger calibre weapons are needed, which are available and are being used, and journalism as used in The Scum needs rebuffing and corrected.

Imagine the mums and dads at home reading in the paper that there sons and daughters are "using the wrong bullets". The way it was worded implied that the guys on the ground where being issued the wrong rounds and that the Taliban where using "better bullets" and that we should be issuing "better bullets" to our guys...

Ohhhhhhh,,it really gets me....grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Ive always found it depends where the ammunition was manufactured, for instance most middle eastern ammunition wouldn't make 400 meters let alone 900.

Originally Posted by 2/51

I do believe The Scum newspaper was calling for air rifles to be banned not that long ago as they where "lethal", "dangerous" "a threat to life"...hmmmm..so now the L85 is not as lethal as my old Airarms Tx200?

Second point, could be wrong on this, but the marksman we had in our company where eqipped with L96 rifles. Last time i fired one it was 7.62, so on that front, we are no different to them (I bet Nick Griffen could not say that ;)) and probably somewhat better off due to training, superior ammunition and sights.

I started off my military career with SLR's..loved them. I used M16's in Brunei, where your vision was around 15 metres in the jungle, if you where lucky (often much less) and I was extremely excited when I got my hands in a L85.

The L85s history goes right back to the 1940's (bullpup design), its development in the 60's (calibre, round efficientcy), when a British soldier was expected to be fighting Soviet troops face to face on the streets of Berlin or sat in tha back of a 432 waiting for a nuck strike, and was trialled in 1975/6 and rolled out when the Cold War was still on and the majority of British Troops where seeing action on the streets of Northern Ireland where a 7.62 could cause considerable collateral damage.

For what it was designed for, I don't think the L85 can be bettered.

Because "our" enemy has changed means things need adapting. Tactics need to change, which they have, larger calibre weapons are needed, which are available and are being used, and journalism as used in The Scum needs rebuffing and corrected.

Imagine the mums and dads at home reading in the paper that there sons and daughters are "using the wrong bullets". The way it was worded implied that the guys on the ground where being issued the wrong rounds and that the Taliban where using "better bullets" and that we should be issuing "better bullets" to our guys...

Ohhhhhhh,,it really gets me....grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

You don't half talk some bollocks.

Tell it to the Taliban - Oh, we have killed the majority who have come face to face to us, thats why they are using IEDs, as it tends not to lose them the fight. Funny that.

Originally Posted by Cutaway

You don't half talk some bollocks.

Why thank you

Care to elaborate? :P

Originally Posted by future_rupert

Tell it to the Taliban - Oh, we have killed the majority who have come face to face to us, thats why they are using IEDs, as it tends not to lose them the fight. Funny that.

with what weapon system?