Left-handed AR15/M16

#1
These chaps are producing true left-handed AR15/M16 uppers and complete rifles, and they advertise themselves as "the wpn of choice for professionals fighing the war on terror and for police officers who depend on a reliable wpn"

http://www.stagarms.com/

I wonder if any south-paws currently in the sandpit bought one of the uppers and put it on their issued lower? (yes, I am aware that regs probably prohibit it, and the obvious logistical issues, but these don't seem to stop everyone...)

Now, if only the MoD had seen fit to buy 10% left-handed L85s instead of all those TVs and comfy chairs.....
 
#2
stoatman said:
Now, if only the MoD had seen fit to buy 10% left-handed L85s instead of all those TVs and comfy chairs.....
I had heard that there was ample evidence from the Annual Personal Weapons Tests that the south-paws shot just as well as the right handers with SA80.
 
#3
Seen a few Yank soldiers with left handed weapons, depending on the unit, they can be a bit more relaxed when it comes to customising their weapons
 
#4
Gun_Nut said:
stoatman said:
Now, if only the MoD had seen fit to buy 10% left-handed L85s instead of all those TVs and comfy chairs.....
I had heard that there was ample evidence from the Annual Personal Weapons Tests that the south-paws shot just as well as the right handers with SA80.
THat's not the issue, though sounds like bo1locks to me - I'm sure some southpaws can shoot just as well, but I know of many who cannot. The issue is, as has been repeated again and again on here that there is nobody equipped with a weapon who can take a shot around the left-side of cover/building without exposing his whole body. All the other bullpups in NATO (FAMAS & AUG) can be altered to eject left except the L85. Now, you can't do this in a firefight, but with 1 in 10-odd people being left-handed, the chances are that there's going to be someone present who can do it.
 
#5
Don't forget some people are Right handed, but left eye dominant, which means to shoot accurately they need to fire left handed. That'd surely increase the number of lefties.
 
#6
I wonder how many people in the army are lefties, and I wonder how many righties are left-eye-dominant? I'd say both combined probably makes up for what; 5% of the armed forces? Less than 5%?

Take however many lefties are in the forces, the vast majority of them can fire perfectly from the right shoulder.

Therefore, the percentage of lefties who can't fire from their right to save their lives must be extremely low. Why spend millions to cater for a percentage of people that probably is below 2%?
 
#8
The right handed M16 can be fired left handed anyway, so I don't see the point of this modification to be honest.

One for the SA80 would be useful though.

Mac
 
#9
Manchester_Rogue said:
I wonder how many people in the army are lefties, and I wonder how many righties are left-eye-dominant? I'd say both combined probably makes up for what; 5% of the armed forces? Less than 5%?

Take however many lefties are in the forces, the vast majority of them can fire perfectly from the right shoulder.

Therefore, the percentage of lefties who can't fire from their right to save their lives must be extremely low. Why spend millions to cater for a percentage of people that probably is below 2%?
I wonder how many people have died/been wounded because they had to expose more of their bodies to fire around the left side of cover due to the SA-80's design? This cost concern doesn't seem to have bothered the designers of the FAMAS or AUG - I say again, the SA-80 is the ONLY bullpup in NATO that cannot be modified for left-shoulder firing.

In any case, around 20-35% (depending on who you ask) of all people are left-eye dominant, so I'd wager that they make up 20-35% of the armed forces as well.


BigMac - yes, true, but apparently lefties still get the odd empty in the face (despite the case deflector) and the odd powder burn on their arm.
 
#10
stoatman said:
THat's not the issue, though sounds like bo1locks to me - I'm sure some southpaws can shoot just as well, but I know of many who cannot. The issue is, as has been repeated again and again on here that there is nobody equipped with a weapon who can take a shot around the left-side of cover/building without exposing his whole body.
Quite true, this is definately a big issue, when there are rounds incoming, you really want to be in as much cover as possible whilst stilll getting as many accurate rounds down as possible...it isnt rocket science!

BigMac said:
The right handed M16 can be fired left handed anyway, so I don't see the point of this modification to be honest.

One for the SA80 would be useful though.

Mac

I am right handed but I always transition to shoot with my left on my M4 when either firing around the left of a vehicle or building, the casings come out pretty straight so no chance of them hitting you, unless i guess it hits something and bounces back but I haven't had that happen..yet
 
#11
stoatman said:
I wonder how many people have died/been wounded because they had to expose more of their bodies to fire around the left side of cover due to the SA-80's design? This cost concern doesn't seem to have bothered the designers of the FAMAS or AUG - I say again, the SA-80 is the ONLY bullpup in NATO that cannot be modified for left-shoulder firing.
Zero.

Same as the amount of people killed due to the A1 version's reliability problem. Zero.

There is the old chessnut about modifying bullpups to fire left handed. I hope you know both the FAMAS and the Steyr AUG are either-or weapons. Both can be modifed for either left or right handed people, however they cannot be switched on the fly, nor can they be reliabily and realistically adapted in the field.

So buddy, your argument fell through.

Funny how, even though the SA80 can't be fired from left shoulder and is a bit back/top heavy, you don't hear people complaining about its lethality or reliability?
 
#12
M_R Yes, I am aware that they cannot be changed on the fly, but at least they can be changed at all. IIRC the FAMAS can be adjusted in the field by the soldier, the AUG requires a different bolt head to be fitted by an armourer. Not exactly difficult, and would have cost 4/5 of feck all to incorporate the AUG method into the SA-80 at the design phase.

And you don't here people complaining about the reliability of the SA80? What planet are you on? I have no experience with the A2, but the A1 was TERRIBLE! And there are plenty of complaints about the lethality of the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. So whose argument fell through???
 
#13
When HK were putting together prototypes for the L85A2 they produced a left handed Rifle and an open bolt LSW, obviously the MOD rejected these as there was no need for them/ they weren't much cop. Slate the MOD all you want but they really went to town on the A2, pulled out all the stops. The A2 is the dogs bollox - the final results from the trial say it all. The HK G36 was put through the same tests and started to melt and they M16 suffered fatal stoppages on the desert trial.

HK are know using the technology from the A2 project on their latest weapons, the G36 bolt is from the A2 and the magazine used on the new US Rifle is also from the A2 so it shows how good it is.

As for lefties, I'm left handed and I like the L85 as all the drills are done with the left hand minus flicking the safety off with your right fore finger.

As for firing round the left side over cover, you've now got LMG gunners (refuse to call it the minimi as thats french) - 1 per 4 man fire team - which is more than the odd lefty in the section and if your lucky a light role GPMG gunner to hand. A Infantry platoon would even have a sniper at their disposal.
 
#14
stoatman said:
And there are plenty of complaints about the lethality of the 5.56mm NATO cartridge.
Only from the spams who insist on using it in dinky little 14" barrelled M4 carbines, which substantially drops its range and lethality. The Brits with their 20" and 26" barrelled SA80s seem to have few problems in this regard. Mind you the LMG has a 14" barrel and the SA80 carbine must be around 10". Remind me again why we bought both of these?
 
#15
"Mind you the LMG has a 14" barrel and the SA80 carbine must be around 10". Remind me again why we bought both of these?"

Because they were cheap?
 
#16
Gun_Doc said:
HK are know using the technology from the A2 project on their latest weapons, the G36 bolt is from the A2 and the magazine used on the new US Rifle is also from the A2 so it shows how good it is.
The G36 predates the A2 by about 10 years, and has a 6-lug bolt. How many lugs does the A2 have? (I last had one open 2 years ago and didn't count the lugs - it seemed to be more than that. If it is 6, then it might be the case that the A2 bolt is from the G36 and definitely not the other way around!). The bolt carriers are significantly different though, the G36 having only one guide rod. The mags look suspiciously like ones which had already been designed by H&K long before the A2 contract for their STANAG versions of earlier rifles (so says Cuts, and I'm inclined to believe him).
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#17
Gun_Doc said:
When HK were putting together prototypes for the L85A2 they produced a left handed Rifle and an open bolt LSW, obviously the MOD rejected these as there was no need for them/ they weren't much cop.
I've not seen the left handed A2 prototypes, do you have a link to any gen on this ?
I quite agree that there is no need for a southpaw only wpn, just as there is none for a purely right handed one.


Gun_Doc said:
Slate the MOD all you want but they really went to town on the A2, pulled out all the stops. The A2 is the dogs bollox - the final results from the trial say it all.
They had to be seen to do something, even if they were making a silk purse.
The trials were tailor made, and the clouding of definitions makes the results worth further study. I'd like to see how the L85A2 fares in the SIG 550 tests.

Gun_Doc said:
HK are know using the technology from the A2 project on their latest weapons, the G36 bolt is from the A2 and the magazine used on the new US Rifle is also from the A2 so it shows how good it is.
As Stoatman mentioned, the G36 predates the L85A2 by some time, and the mags that some claim to be specially designed came straight out of H&K's stores.
If they charged the MOD for R&D of the magazine then good luck to them, someone in procurement needs to do research before doling out my tax pounds.

Gun_Doc said:
As for firing round the left side over cover, you've now got LMG gunners (refuse to call it the minimi as thats french) - 1 per 4 man fire team - which is more than the odd lefty in the section and if your lucky a light role GPMG gunner to hand.
Handy if you can ensure your lefties are the only ones who have to shoot left of cover.

Gun_Doc said:
A Infantry platoon would even have a sniper at their disposal.
I think the word is should, but having snipers or sharpshooters still doesn't address the issue of firing from cover.
 
#18
stoatman said:
M_R Yes, I am aware that they cannot be changed on the fly, but at least they can be changed at all. IIRC the FAMAS can be adjusted in the field by the soldier, the AUG requires a different bolt head to be fitted by an armourer.
The FAMAS contains many fiddly parts when adjusting the ejection path. It is not recommended that it is altered in the field.

Hence why...it isn't altered in the field.

You've missed the point though: are you going to strip your weapon every time you want to fire from the left shoulder to utilize cover? thought not.
stoatman said:
And you don't here people complaining about the reliability of the SA80? What planet are you on? I have no experience with the A2, but the A1 was TERRIBLE!
So you have no experience of the A2? Why don't you shut up then? Quite honestly, you have no experience with, and therefore, are not qualified to speak of it.

The A2 series SA80 is easily more reliable than the M16/M4. It even gives the G36 a match for its money in terms of reliability. Of course the A1 was terrible, but they'ev sorted it out in the A2. The SA80 has gone from being one of the most un reliable to one of the most reliable. But of course, you wouldn't know this because you have feck all experience.
stoatman said:
And there are plenty of complaints about the lethality of the 5.56mm NATO cartridge.
Only from the septics. This is due to a number of reasons:

(1) they probably missed the target.
(2) they probably tried to engage a target at 600+ meters with their dinky M4 carbines. There are lots of videos of the septics trying to do this, bearing in mind the 5.56 NATO only achieves lethality UP TO 100 meters with the small 14" M4 barrel.
(3) did i mention they probably missed?

stoatman said:
So whose argument fell through???
Again, yours.

You have never even fired the A2, by your own admission. Yet you say its a rubbish weapon. Therefore, your whole argument centers on hearsay and "my mate told me..." style arguments. In other words, you have no argument, just mindless ignorant mis-informed drivil.
 
#19
If it's so damn good, why has the MoD been obfuscating (claiming that the Booties had themselves caused reliability problems in Afghanistan, talking about 'stoppages' when they don't mean stoppages, admitting that the A2s were taken to the range in bags and fired on plastic sheeting and then claiming that the rifles were left lying around in the dirt so it's all OK), devising a very cunning but utterly uncomprehensive test regime (compare "fire 150rds in 8min 40 in several more or less exotic locations around the world" with this: http://www.biggerhammer.net/sigamt/550/550techinspection/)? If it's so damn good, why aren't the orders flooding in for them?

No, I'm not expecting to strip the wpn every time I want to change shoulder - I want a rifle that can be fired from either. I.e. not a Bullpup, although the new FN one ejects down a chute so can be fired from either.

Given that functionally the A2 is no different from the A1, I can still comment on every aspect of it except the practical reliability (on which I never actually made a concrete comment), which the cunningly-devised test regime does not allow me to assess. It is still:

Too heavy (ever noticed how the MoD usually quotes weight w/o SUSAT when making comparisons?)
Badly balanced
Can't be fired left-shoulder
The change lever is still awkwardly under the sling

WRT lethality, "Andy McStab" even notes in that well-written piece of literary ghost-writing genius B20 that it often takes several rds to put the bad guy down with 5.56mm, and he was using a full-length M16. So it's not just the spams.
 
#20
You know something. I want a rifle that can be fired from either shoulder too! I'd take a G36 (any variant) any day over an A2. I don't have a choice, so I make do with what I got; not wish for something that I'll never have.

Lots of people in the armed forces find the SA80 (either A1 or A2) to be a good gun and few feel hindered by its weight or "balance". The SA80 is easier to aim and easier to control when firing full automatic. Ever fired an FN FAL on full automatic? Not a nice thing I can tell you. So, the "too heavy, badly balanced, right handed only bullpup" disgin is still very lethal.

5.56 will never be as lethal as 7.62. Viet cong in Vietnam sometimes took several .50 BMG rounds from Browning MGs and still managed to travel several feet forward and throw a grenade. Just goes to show, the calibre isn't everything, it is what you do with a bullet that counts. In other words, shot placement.

The A2's design/layout isn't perfect. It is a bit weighty. It isn't the BEST gun in the world (yet it is still bloody good nonetheless). Still, we seen to do fine with the gun. It serves us well.

What is complaining about it going to achieve? You think the MOD cares what some washed up old codger thinks about their precious SA80? The Army has always 'made do' with sub standard kit.

With that last paragraph in mind, the SA80A2 is fine for use. Only the armchair commandos have a problem with it.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top