Japan’s new rifle.

That would be an excellent example of too little twist for good stabilization leading to shorter effective range for an excellent round, as well as too high a cyclic rate to make it even less useful. I do so wish that France would sell me one, almost as much as I wish the UK would sell me an L85.
 
300m is designated marksman territory, but the L1A1 and the L129 have exactly the SAME effective firing range of 800m. That was one area where the UK touch was an improvement over the original FAL (600m). I don't notice much difference my self... all of my Inch and Metric SLRs seem to reach out wherever I need them to.
300m was part of the APWT for everyone with L1A1. As for 800m my memory may be faulty but I seem to remember UK doctrine throughout the service life of 'That Rifle' was 300m individual fire, 600m section fire. Can't remember 800m at all.

Could be wrong though.
 
300m was part of the APWT for everyone with L1A1. As for 800m my memory may be faulty but I seem to remember UK doctrine throughout the service life of 'That Rifle' was 300m individual fire, 600m section fire. Can't remember 800m at all.

Could be wrong though.
I would hazard that is doctrinal, not a physical limitation of the SLR. In any case still much better than the SA80 family.
 
But you have paid over price 4 times now for a short sight radius, fat arsed piece of derivative tech that took over 30 years to get up to snuff.
In those three decades, the US armed forces have gone through two or three derivations of the Armalite family, so the cost difference isn’t so massive, and sight radius means precisely nothing when you are using optical sights, which the SA80 has since introduction.

What gets me most is the way septics throw such a hissy fit about it.
 
I would hazard that is doctrinal, not a physical limitation of the SLR. In any case still much better than the SA80 family.
Having used both quite extensively, I would respectfully disagree. Of course it is doctrine - but it serves a purpose, in other words there's little point in an individual rifleman engaging a target beyond 300m or the section beyond 600m with an L1A1 due to limitations other than technical weapons performance - like target acquisition for example or the marksmanship ability of the average firer - we all know that 7.62mm is good to 1800m but only in the SF role.

I loved my SLR but shot far better with an SA80 (and I was a marksman with both).
 
I would hazard that is doctrinal, not a physical limitation of the SLR. In any case still much better than the SA80 family.
SA80 came with a 4 x sight on it, the L1A1 didnt. There was a noticeable increase in APWT passes with the new system as opposed to the L1A1. When the L1A1 came out, it was like the M16, the idea of someone sticking expensive optics on a bog standard rifle for the common grunt just wasnt there.
SA80A1 was flawed, which is why HK got brought in to sort it out. In Its A2 version, its really a nice bit of kit, even better now that we know what we can stick on it and the provision made for that.
If you ever get a chance to shoot the LSW/SA80A2, give it a go. You might find the ergonomics a little strange, but once you've settled in, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how well it works. You will certainly be confident of going to 600m after putting your first mag through, or even beyond with a properly zero'd weapon with the LSW variant. Be aware that UK recruits and most squaddies will have no "muscle memory" of conventional layout weaponry, so wont have those initial "wtf" moments. The mag change is easier than is often portrayed - its just that it takes place closer to the chest. The stoppage drills feel different because of where the hold open device and release are placed and the fact that the cocking handle is fixed to the bolt, and there isnt a forward assist lever other than by tapping the bolt handle forward. Also the fire selector lever is LHS, and the safety is not incorporated with it, but forward in the trigger guard. Once your familiar with it, everything just works. Is it an uber-weapon - of course not, but it is good. There is the issue with a fixed butt length of one size fits all and the RHS ejection port and reciprocating cocking handle. Had they gone for a Steyr type cocking method where the cocking handle is on the LHS, it could have made things easier.
 
In those three decades, the US armed forces have gone through two or three derivations of the Armalite family, so the cost difference isn’t so massive, and sight radius means precisely nothing when you are using optical sights, which the SA80 has since introduction.

What gets me most is the way septics throw such a hissy fit about it.
Those revisions were not because any of them had a tendency for the furniture to fall apart, the trigger mechanism to break, or to constantly choke on brass that preferred to stay in the receiver instead of ejecting out the side.

What is it's effective range without batteries, btw?
 
SA80 came with a 4 x sight on it, the L1A1 didnt. There was a noticeable increase in APWT passes with the new system as opposed to the L1A1. When the L1A1 came out, it was like the M16, the idea of someone sticking expensive optics on a bog standard rifle for the common grunt just wasnt there.
I'm quite comfortable and happy with plain old iron sights, unless I have to shoot something that is in the next county.

SA80A1 was flawed, which is why HK got brought in to sort it out. In Its A2 version, its really a nice bit of kit, even better now that we know what we can stick on it and the provision made for that.
I thought you guys were onto the A3 version with those good ol 'Merican PMAGS and KeyMod stocks to help fix up some of the rest of those reliability and weight issues...

If you ever get a chance to shoot the LSW/SA80A2, give it a go. You might find the ergonomics a little strange, but once you've settled in, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how well it works. You will certainly be confident of going to 600m after putting your first mag through, or even beyond with a properly zero'd weapon with the LSW variant. Be aware that UK recruits and most squaddies will have no "muscle memory" of conventional layout weaponry, so wont have those initial "wtf" moments. The mag change is easier than is often portrayed - its just that it takes place closer to the chest. The stoppage drills feel different because of where the hold open device and release are placed and the fact that the cocking handle is fixed to the bolt, and there isnt a forward assist lever other than by tapping the bolt handle forward. Also the fire selector lever is LHS, and the safety is not incorporated with it, but forward in the trigger guard. Once your familiar with it, everything just works. Is it an uber-weapon - of course not, but it is good. There is the issue with a fixed butt length of one size fits all and the RHS ejection port and reciprocating cocking handle. Had they gone for a Steyr type cocking method where the cocking handle is on the LHS, it could have made things easier.
Yeah... guess your guys never will fix that controls uberall "feature."

And they would have to actually redesign the bolt carrier from the AR-18 and add an op rod and other internals to break and bind to give you a LHC cocking handle that wouldn't smack your nose...
 
Those revisions were not because any of them had a tendency for the furniture to fall apart, the trigger mechanism to break, or to constantly choke on brass that preferred to stay in the receiver instead of ejecting out the side.
yet the US military still felt the need to make the changes and it still cost them a new rifle each time they did.
What is it's effective range without batteries, btw?
Presumably you mean batteries in the sight?
The original SUSAT had an etched aiming mark with tritium illumination, so 10 year(ish) ‘battery‘ life but it’s still functional without the illumination, just less effective in low light (but still vastly more effective than iron sights)
The UOR ACOG used a combination of fibre optic and tritium light source to illuminate an etched reticle, so same deal as the SUSAT except the illumination in daylight never goes away.
The current Elcan uses batteries to illuminate an etched reticle, so again, your aiming mark doesn’t go away if the battery runs out (plus they last for thousands of hours and are small)

So in all cases;
In daylight, effective range unaffected
In low light, effective range reduced slightly but still far in excess of iron sights in the same conditions.
 
I'm quite comfortable and happy with plain old iron sights, unless I have to shoot something that is in the next county.
Or a target that is difficult to see, which is surprisingly more common on the battlefield that on a range.
 
Having used both quite extensively, I would respectfully disagree. Of course it is doctrine - but it serves a purpose, in other words there's little point in an individual rifleman engaging a target beyond 300m or the section beyond 600m with an L1A1 due to limitations other than technical weapons performance - like target acquisition for example or the marksmanship ability of the average firer - we all know that 7.62mm is good to 1800m but only in the SF role.

I loved my SLR but shot far better with an SA80 (and I was a marksman with both).
So, you agree, but don't want to admit it... Target acquisition is on the shooter, as is marksmanship ability, but I do concede that a magnified sight may help the shooter with acquisition, and the 5.56 has a flatter trajectory that will help out those with poorer marksmanship skills. But at the time you guys made the switch, you went for less range, less stopping power, and more weight, and the SLR had the 4x SUIT. Would've been better to just swap that out for the new SUSAT.
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
I'm quite comfortable and happy with plain old iron sights, unless I have to shoot something that is in the next county.



I thought you guys were onto the A3 version with those good ol 'Merican PMAGS and KeyMod stocks to help fix up some of the rest of those reliability and weight issues...



Yeah... guess your guys never will fix that controls uberall "feature."

And they would have to actually redesign the bolt carrier from the AR-18 and add an op rod and other internals to break and bind to give you a LHC cocking handle that wouldn't smack your nose...
Very happy for detailed discussion and difference of opinion but you're just being an arrse for the sake of it. If you want to troll then take it to another site. This thread is about the Japanese gat, not about how much better 'Murican stuff is over Brit.
 
Very happy for detailed discussion and difference of opinion but you're just being an arrse for the sake of it. If you want to troll then take it to another site. This thread is about the Japanese gat, not about how much better 'Murican stuff is over Brit.
I think you will find this thread covered dozens of different rifles from the Chassepot, to Krags, to Mausers, and even Vintorez, without any of my trolling. You will also find the flaming butterknife arguing with Bacongrills over total costs of SA80 family versus M16 family before he turned his attention to me.

Nitpicking a meandering plot line to death is an historical feature of ArRSe, everyone's a troll, everybody lies, and no one understands sarcasm or irony, except the ones that say no one understands sarcasm or irony.

Stop being a racist.
 
So, you agree, but don't want to admit it... Target acquisition is on the shooter, as is marksmanship ability, but I do concede that a magnified sight may help the shooter with acquisition, and the 5.56 has a flatter trajectory that will help out those with poorer marksmanship skills. But at the time you guys made the switch, you went for less range, less stopping power, and more weight, and the SLR had the 4x SUIT. Would've been better to just swap that out for the new SUSAT.
No, to be clear - I don't agree with you.

Target acquisition is often not just on the shooter - the terrain often gets in the way of your ability to make the best use of a weapon's theoretical effective range. Remember - armies don't buy weapons on the assumption that everyone is an excellent marksman so a flat trajectory is a help, not any kind of hindrance. So, the 5.56mm adequately meets our range requirement, has adequate stopping power at that range, a teeny bit more weight (but I never found myself thinking 'you know what? This SA80 is a right heavy bastard I'd much rather have an M16'). One of the key advantages of 5.56mm over 7.62mm for both you and us is that you can carry more rounds - and with an SA80, more of them will hit the target, even in an average shooter's hands.
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
I think you will find this thread covered dozens of different rifles from the Chassepot, to Krags, to Mausers, and even Vintorez, without any of my trolling. You will also find the flaming butterknife arguing with Bacongrills over total costs of SA80 family versus M16 family before he turned his attention to me.

Nitpicking a meandering plot line to death is an historical feature of ArRSe, everyone's a troll, everybody lies, and no one understands sarcasm or irony, except the ones that say no one understands sarcasm or irony.

Stop being a racist.
You are the idiot in the room here. Warning given.
 
I prefer the strong names like HMS Tiger, Valiant, Indefatigable, Warspite, Pansy, Spanker and Gay Viking.

We could have an HMS Ronnie Pickering, that'll send a message of fear and dread to those commie barstewards.
Trouble is it would constantly be addressed as “Hello unknown call sign...”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Those revisions were not because any of them had a tendency for the furniture to fall apart, the trigger mechanism to break, or to constantly choke on brass that preferred to stay in the receiver instead of ejecting out the side.

What is it's effective range without batteries, btw?
SUSAT doesnt use batteries?
 
300m is designated marksman territory, but the L1A1 and the L129 have exactly the SAME effective firing range of 800m. That was one area where the UK touch was an improvement over the original FAL (600m).
Wrong. Have you ever fired an L1A1 at 500yds? With iron sights? I have. Suggesting that L1A1 had a range of 800m is incorrect; none of the pamphlets suggested it (it was "300m as an individual, 600m as a section", i.e. seven blokes fire a couple of shots, and if you're lucky one out of fifteen rounds will hit something).

I used to find it sodding difficult to hit a Fig.11 "NATO Charging Man" (90cm x 45cm) at 400m with L1A1 during the ARA "Section Match", and I was in the shooting team (and provably a good shot). By contrast, I helped coach a UOTC shooting team; and as I was check-zeroing some LSW on a 600m range, I let the riflemen fire L85 at 600m for the experience. Most of them started hitting the target consistently once they'd realised how far they now had to aim off for crosswind (thankyou, SIUS-ASCOR).

Yeah... but it goes to the question of accuracy and utility required for designated marksmen & snipers, pointing out that L85 doesn't exactly cut it. I also tossed that in there so that I could remind people that the L8X weighed half a kilo MORE than the 7.62 L1A1 it replaced (which could do the job of the now required bespoke L129), once someone noted its inclusion.
I took part in our battalion's conversion from L1A1 to L85A1. I can assure you that the battalion's ability to hit what it aimed at, increased dramatically as a result. Across the board.

Getting an L1A1 to perform at 300m took a lot of effort and coaching. Getting novices to knock down targets at 300m with an L85A1 was a piece of p!ss by comparison; even with a more demanding annual personal weapons test, the pass rates and median scores went up significantly, and stayed there.

The L85A1 was immediately proven to be the better weapon; simply because it's much better to hit with 5.56, than to miss with 7.62.
 
Last edited:
I'm quite comfortable and happy with plain old iron sights, unless I have to shoot something that is in the next county.



I thought you guys were onto the A3 version with those good ol 'Merican PMAGS and KeyMod stocks to help fix up some of the rest of those reliability and weight issues...



Yeah... guess your guys never will fix that controls uberall "feature."

And they would have to actually redesign the bolt carrier from the AR-18 and add an op rod and other internals to break and bind to give you a LHC cocking handle that wouldn't smack your nose...
A3 is not on issue to everyone yet, my experience is strictly A2. The changes are certainly not generational and are more talored to OTS add ons. Issues with the A1 magazine were simply down to tinny rubbish by RO. A lot were released on the US market and did not impress. Some of us acquired US steel magazines as a result in the KFOR era. The A2 steel mags from HK were miles better and both heavy and robust. There has never been reliability issues with HK mags, but then they are well made. PMAGS were a good idea, certainly when you can see how many rounds you have left without having to tap the magazine. Im not sure how we seized on them, it may well have been exposure to them via SF or US troops but a damn good idea by third parties.
The SA80 is stamped steel construction and not Aluminium alloy. Furthermore, the design has more metal than the M16, ( just look at whats forward of the reciever ) so it will be heavier, but it does make for a rigid design.
Steyr bolt carrier rides on two rods, RHS is the gas piston, the LHS engages the cocking handle. Because of the internal layout of the SA80, its not possible to use that solution. The Steyr is better thought out in terms of engineering - its certainly easier to take apart and put together again.
 
No, to be clear - I don't agree with you.

Target acquisition is often not just on the shooter - the terrain often gets in the way of your ability to make the best use of a weapon's theoretical effective range.
Terrain, building, wall, trees, or foliage in the way is going to be of more detriment to the effective range of any 5.56 than any 7.62.

Remember - armies don't buy weapons on the assumption that everyone is an excellent marksman so a flat trajectory is a help, not any kind of hindrance.
I did not say flat trajectory was a hindrance, I specifically said it was a help.

So, the 5.56mm adequately meets our range requirement, has adequate stopping power at that range, a teeny bit more weight (but I never found myself thinking 'you know what? This SA80 is a right heavy bastard I'd much rather have an M16'). One of the key advantages of 5.56mm over 7.62mm for both you and us is that you can carry more rounds - and with an SA80, more of them will hit the target, even in an average shooter's hands.
It's adequate until it isn't, which is why it has been supplemented with those other AR based systems in 5.56 and 7.62...
Just like we never quite get away from our own supplemental tools. We just never added weight to, whilst subtracting usability from, our primary infantry weapons system.

As for what I could carry more of, I think I would choose to still be carrying 800 linked 7.62 and a spare barrel for my GMPG.
 

Latest Threads

Top