Thread: LSW...the Armys view...

Are you typing the answers to a quiz only you can see, BH?

Possibly, he's definitely posting the answers that the people who make big decisions need hammering home.

Originally Posted by Taff49

Originally Posted by Gun_Nut

Such a weapon would have the added advantage that at a flick of a switch it can turn into a machinegun capable of firing 960 rounds in 36 minutes without a stoppage.

my bold. 27 rounds a minute?

Yup. That's the defined "Battlefield Mission" for the LSW (see this PDF for a better description)

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

Getting the accuracy out of it might be an issue too. Some are very wobbly on the two pins. It's not a very clever way of holding two bits of a weapon together. I know all the working bits are in the top half but it's like firing anything else with the stock loose, not good for repeatability. In fact it's not much different than firing a fully floated bolt action rifle with the bedding screws loose, certainly on some of the more worn ones. My IW is quite tight but it still moves.

Hmm - the AR15 family is also held together by 2 pins and that seems to have stood the test of time. I think that it is more to do with tolerances rather than pins. The AR15's are made out of forged or machined Al alloy and so have a better chance of a tighter fit between the upper and lower receivers. The SA80 on the other hand is made out of pretty basic stamped and welded steel (baked bean tins if you are unkind). Whilst this is plenty robust enough, it is much harder to achieve tight tolerances with this construction, hence the wobbles.

Does it affect accuracy? SA80 is certainly more accurate than an M16 or an M4, but probably not as accurate as a good AR15 based DMR like the SAM-R.

Originally Posted by Gun_Nut

[

Hmm - the AR15 family is also held together by 2 pins and seems to have stood the test of time. I think that it is more to do with tolerances rather than pins. The AR15's are made out of forged or machined Al alloy and so have a better chance of a tighter fit between the upper and lower receivers. The SA80 on the other hand is made out of pretty basic stamped and welded steel (baked bean tins if you are unkind). Whilst this is plenty robust enough, it is much harder to achieve tight tolerances with this construction, hence the wobbles.

Does it affect accuracy? SA80 is certainly more accurate than an M16 or an M4, but probably not as accurate as a good AR15 based DMR like the SAM-R.

I would be surprised if an ACOG-equipped SA 80 is more accurate than a ACOG-equipped M-16 A4, particularly if equipped with one of the free float rails that you are seeing more and more of on the combat footage.

AR-15-type rifles are almost always tighter on the pins because they are better made, and the front pin goes through a complete hole rather than just the extremely silly C- shaped recess.

Cunning trick: pack the front pin by using a bit of card in the silly recess and that will tighten it up fine and dandy. Works a charm!

Sam-r should be more accurate than an SA80 or the US army should ask for its money back.

SA80 standard issue
sam r dmr hand fettled customish rifle.

I really don't get where this idea that SA80 is really accurate comes from. I can shoot and none of the SA80's I've fired have been particularly spectacular. 2 - 4 MOA, generally nearer 4. I'd be interestede to get one down on some sandbags and hav a real good go with a few boxes of ammo. One day......

Often asked myself the same question EX_STAB. Most folk who announce its accuracy have little or no other firearms experience by which to compare accuracy with. Those who were around when they were first issued will quote the scores improvement on the APWT but its not that straightforward. Most who shot the SLR were using iron sights with worn out barrels and giving them any form of optics improved scores, further having a weapon with a new tight barrel could only help. I also think that the SA80 made a poor shot look better but only marginally improved the good shot.

Be very interesting to see it shoot against similar weapons of similar condition.

Originally Posted by .338lapua_magnum

I also think that the SA80 made a poor shot look better but only marginally improved the good shot.

IIRC, Hesketh-Pritchard said almost exactly the opposite about the optically-sighted rifle during WW1 (just making an observation, not having a go )

Quite interesting Auscam, Im afraid I have only a little data to go on, all of it personal observation and only on gallery ranges. At the time we certainly felt that there was a more notable improvement in the less able shot but the guys who always shot well showed a less spectacular improvement. The change in caliber may have had a lot to do with it too. Did Hesketh-Pritchard have a cal change in his observations?

Originally Posted by .338lapua_magnum

Quite interesting Auscam, Im afraid I have only a little data to go on, all of it personal observation and only on gallery ranges. At the time we certainly felt that there was a more notable improvement in the less able shot but the guys who always shot well showed a less spectacular improvement. The change in caliber may have had a lot to do with it too. Did Hesketh-Pritchard have a cal change in his observations?

No mate, I think he was referring to scopes vs. open sights in general. Indeed, I don't think he was even referring to the same rifle type, given the (initially) fairly shambolic state of British sniping during the War. I can recall the amount of effort involved in both teaching - and being taught to shoot - with SLR. A calibre that offers less recoil, plus a decent optical sight, certainly could hardly fail to improve students' confidence and ease instructors' workload. Admittedly, F 88 was after my time, so I could be talking out of my arse.

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether recruits with previous experience of firearms make better or worse students of marksmanship? (apologies if this is a bit of an old chestnut)

P.S.;Sniping in France 1914-1918 was H-P's book. Bloody good read, too!

I think previous experience makes a big difference in many cases. I was in the Cadets prior to joining and also spent alot of time (usually unsuccessfully!) trying to pop rabbits and pigeons with an air rifle. Then in Depot i was the second best shot in the platoon, mainly due, in my opinion, to my previous experiences with shooting, even if it was limited.

Any bad habits one may have picked up are outweighed by the experience in guessing range, wind, breathing properly and getting into a good stable position. This grounding in the basics, mainly self taught, lets you get on with getting used to a 'proper' rifle and shooting well with it.

Must say though that towards the end of Depot, and in Battalion, those of a poorer standard did catch up, so maybe prior experience is only useful as an initial stepping stone and doesn't affect your 'end ability'?

Originally Posted by Dossbag

I think previous experience makes a big difference in many cases. I was in the Cadets prior to joining and also spent alot of time (usually unsuccessfully!) trying to pop rabbits and pigeons with an air rifle. Then in Depot i was the second best shot in the platoon, mainly due, in my opinion, to my previous experiences with shooting, even if it was limited.

Any bad habits one may have picked up are outweighed by the experience in guessing range, wind, breathing properly and getting into a good stable position. This grounding in the basics, mainly self taught, lets you get on with getting used to a 'proper' rifle and shooting well with it.

Must say though that towards the end of Depot, and in Battalion, those of a poorer standard did catch up, so maybe prior experience is only useful as an initial stepping stone and doesn't affect your 'end ability'?

I did competition shooting before Depot. It certainly makes a difference at the start, especially with breathing and elevation/depression; but most were at a similar level on passing out.

As we're getting on to marksmanship training I would venture that the rushed nature of most army shooting isn't conducive to individual improvement - I'm meaning in elementary practices, not snaps and rapid of course.


Also, the targets aren't much of a challenge. If I get the same score with a 4" group as somebody with a 10 inch group (on a fig 12) what is going to motivate him to do better?

In reality, both would have been an equal number of "kills" but it doesn't reward good shooting and that matters more as you get further out or the loopholes get smaller.

I've found throughout my training (RAuxAF) that I've been very much left alone to get on with it once I'd proven I was capable.

Note I said capable, I'm no marksman - just achieve good consistent shooting each time we go out.

The DS have enough trouble coaching everyone through APWT that there's little time spent on improving anyone beyond a pass.

That said, speaking to mates in the TA we would seem to do far more IBSR / LFTT training.

Running before we can walk or a reflection of the current tempo?