LSW...the Armys view...

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by 2/51, Oct 25, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Taken direct from the Army/Mod website....

    "SA80 A2 LSW has a heavier and longer barrel allowing greater muzzle velocity and accuracy than the standard SA80.

    When fired from the integrated bipod and using the standard SUSAT sight, LSW is accurate and consistent. It is 95% reliable, better than any of its competitiors."

    Well thats nice to know. Does it even have a competitor? I would have thought every other army in the world opts for some form of LMG.

    http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1461.aspx
     
  2. Which bit of that's wrong? It does have a longer, heavier barrel, it is more accurate than the IW, it is very accurate on the bipod and as it works in exactly the same way as the IW it is reliable. It is stiff competition at its role, however...its role isn't and never should have been fire support. The L110A1 is far and away a better LMG; the LSW is a good designated marksman's rifle but a very poor support weapon. And thankfully that was realised a while ago.

    Edited to add: as for 95% reliable, see TBBT's post here.
     
  3. Plans are afoot for the LSW to be converted to a designated marksman weapon. Better optics, get rid of the fore-end and bipod and replace with the rail system like the A2 ( A2 and LSW fore-ends are not compatible). Mono-pod on the butt. The concept is certainly not new. FN had a bipod equipped, longer barrel varient years ago ( cannot remember the name), but does allow you to reach out a bit further. Longer barrel ( up to a point) will give greater velocity, so will carry further.
     
  4. The LSW is very accurate. On the range. Now it's been re-engineered to A2 standard, it is very reliable. This doesn't stop it being a front-heavy, badly balanced and badly thought out piece of junk.

    It appears to have been designed as a poor man's Bren, but gave up all the advantages of the heavier round and longer reach. It is almost a marksman's weapon, but not as good as a sniper rifle. It is almost an assault rifle, but bigger, clumsier, and heavier. It is almost a machine gun, but can't accept link ammunition.

    It appears to have been a weapon designed to fit a role that never existed, or an attempt to build a weapon that could do many things equally badly, at which it is a triumphal success.

    Not the Army's view but mine. Sooner the whole thing is thrown in the bin the better.
     
  5. I would deny that it is "very accurate". Put a collimator in one, rest it on the bipod, then hold it offhand and look at the difference.

    It wouldn't stand a chance in a straight up match against one of the AR 15-based DMR's that the spams are fielding now (a fine example of civilian developments benefiting the military, by the way).

    Even if/when it is free-floated, it still suffers from poor ergonomics and a piss-poor trigger.
     
  6. I don't know about that , but I can remember people knocking over figure elevens pretty consistently at 600 metres with it and that seemed quite good to me. I dare say there are better DMRs, but if I had to carry an SA80-type weapon tomorrow, I think I'd prefer the LSW to the rifle.

    But I probably won't have to.
     
  7. They got rid of the Bren becuase they realised that a magazine-fed support weapon wasn't a very good idea, then after the GPMG came the LSW, oh dear...
     
  8. As noted, it's an OK range weapon. It suffers from the usual SA80 problem of poor fit with upper and lower body, meaning that the sight can be dead on, but the whole TMH is wobbling all over the place. That would seem to reduce its value as a marksmans weapon. My real gripe with it isn't the longer barrel. It's the great mass of cast iron under the barrel that the bipod fixes to, and which puts all the weight of the weapon to the front. I never used the Bren or LMG, but some of the old and bold might be able to tell us what the effective range was. i'm pretty sure it was over 600m.
     
  9. 95% reliable; does that mean that it fails to fire every 20 rds?
     
  10. It is better than that. I have hit figure 12's at 800 meters. Once you had the point aim sorted after a couple of rounds it was bang, ting, bang, ting until the mag was empty.
     
  11. But I probably won't have to.[/quote]

    As noted, it's an OK range weapon. It suffers from the usual SA80 problem of poor fit with upper and lower body, meaning that the sight can be dead on, but the whole TMH is wobbling all over the place. That would seem to reduce its value as a marksmans weapon. My real gripe with it isn't the longer barrel. It's the great mass of cast iron under the barrel that the bipod fixes to, and which puts all the weight of the weapon to the front. I never used the Bren or LMG, but some of the old and bold might be able to tell us what the effective range was. i'm pretty sure it was over 600m.[/quote]

    Thats the idea of having the alloy fore-end with a new bipod assembly, it doesn't wobble around. Also stops the notorious split groups. Trigger is a problem, being bull-pup theres a long transfer bar, could be worked on, but that would be down to cost.
     
  12.  
  13.  
  14. Not a firearms expert by a long chalk but used to be quite good with the BREN/LMG. It was certainly good out to 600m (but not much more), was very controllable and could put down a good weight of very accurate fire in 2 - 3 round bursts in the right hands, so virtually all rounds aimed.

    It also was really a marksman's weapon rather than a support weapon and suffered from being magazine fed.

    Some have said that it was too accurate, but it was certainly a pleasure to fire