Minimi LMG to go?

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
L85 "iron sighted" for a level playing field, how would that perform
Significantly better than L1A1, as I said - I was hitting the 400m target more often with L85 than I was the 300m with That Rifle (iron sights on both)
 
Only fired the Sa80 iron sighted against the SLR and was not impressed with it, did'nt like it and did'nt trust it. Never fired the L85 at all never mind on iron but it would have had to have had significant changes for it to come up to scratch from the Sa80. Horses for courses and what you are used to I suppose.
 
Only fired the Sa80 iron sighted against the SLR and was not impressed with it, did'nt like it and did'nt trust it. Never fired the L85 at all never mind on iron but it would have had to have had significant changes for it to come up to scratch from the Sa80. Horses for courses and what you are used to I suppose.
isn't SA80 an L85? It's not two different weapons. Marks being A1, A2 and, now, A3. Sights have no bearing on the designation.
 
Because of the horror story the SA80 was the MoD rightly tried to distance themselves from it so a name change was in order
I don’t think that is correct.

The SA80 is the family of weapons (rifle, LSW - standing for ‘Small arms for the 80’s or something’) with the L85 being the designation of the rifle - so if you fired the ‘SA80 rifle’ then you fired the L85.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I hate to be late to the keyboard war, but alas work has been busy.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to fire the C8. Being both left handed and left eye dominant, the difference between it and the L85 for me was night and day. A far more ergonomic weapon to use, and for me atleast, far more accurate.
The reason for Spec Inf requesting the C8 is twofold (three if you count allyness).
You must first consider that the role of Spec Inf is to train foreign forces, nearly all of whom will use traditional weapon systems. A Spec Inf STTT turning up with bullpups when the host nations are using AKs and the like will just make the job of training more difficult, going back and forth between teaching with bullpups and conventional weapons and their differences in various environments. Also consider that Spec Inf, whilst they may be friendly with the nation they are training, may not be in friendly country. The potential necessity for them to defend themselves in unfriendly circumstances, in a foreign environment with zero support and the dangers associated with that cannot be understated. Therefore there is reasonable justification for Spec Inf to request weapon systems that will give them an edge in terms of speed and ease of use, particularly if
returning fire from within soft skinned vehicles or urban environments. Spec Inf units by default are significantly deficient in manpower than their regular counterparts, making these potential fights much harder.
Whilst allyness certainly plays a part in the choice-as it does with most soldiers day to day decisions-I would put the argument forward that if Them, Spec Inf, PF, Close Observers, CP teams and various embassies abroad all opt for the C8 over the standard L85, perhaps these highly trained blokes know a thing or two the rest of us don't when it comes to deciding which is the better rifle. For their use atleast that is.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Here is the question - whoever made this decision - has he ever been under fire from multiple PKM teams 800 meters out?

Stick to being a range queen.
Um, at what point of that problem is having a "600m" (the article is correct, it is closer to 250m) section machine gun going to help. As opposed to, say, a marksman rifle that has a realistic chance of getting a round on target at 800m.

Either you've misunderstood what he said and are disagreeing with someone who was agreeing with you, or you are saying that a Minimi is a good way to combat a medium machine gun with an 800m range. Depressing that you got 15 likes for saying one of two things that are both idiotic.

Whether suppression should be precision or area, or whether machine guns should be magazine fed (obviously not), neither is the issue. The issue is that the Minimi doesn't have an large enough effective range. This has been known for yonks - it was initially taken on as a jungle weapon, primarily. In contacts in the desert environments we have spent the best part of three decades in, the majority of which were at somewhere on the higher end range of a 7.62 round, the Minimi didn't cut it. It's a good weapon for what it was chosen for, but the experienced and envisioned use doesn't fit that bill any more. Also, as pointed out, anyone who has used any of the British Army ones in the last 5-10 years knows that they are all knackered.

If we [ever take on another campaign which means we] fight primarily in jungle or trees any time soon, yes this will seem like a bad choice. But for almost everywhere else it's not a terrible idea.
 
I hate to be late to the keyboard war, but alas work has been busy.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to fire the C8. Being both left handed and left eye dominant, the difference between it and the L85 for me was night and day. A far more ergonomic weapon to use, and for me atleast, far more accurate.
The reason for Spec Inf requesting the C8 is twofold (three if you count allyness).
You must first consider that the role of Spec Inf is to train foreign forces, nearly all of whom will use traditional weapon systems. A Spec Inf STTT turning up with bullpups when the host nations are using AKs and the like will just make the job of training more difficult, going back and forth between teaching with bullpups and conventional weapons and their differences in various environments. Also consider that Spec Inf, whilst they may be friendly with the nation they are training, may not be in friendly country. The potential necessity for them to defend themselves in unfriendly circumstances, in a foreign environment with zero support and the dangers associated with that cannot be understated. Therefore there is reasonable justification for Spec Inf to request weapon systems that will give them an edge in terms of speed and ease of use, particularly if
returning fire from within soft skinned vehicles or urban environments. Spec Inf units by default are significantly deficient in manpower than their regular counterparts, making these potential fights much harder.
Whilst allyness certainly plays a part in the choice-as it does with most soldiers day to day decisions-I would put the argument forward that if Them, Spec Inf, PF, Close Observers, CP teams and various embassies abroad all opt for the C8 over the standard L85, perhaps these highly trained blokes know a thing or two the rest of us don't when it comes to deciding which is the better rifle. For their use atleast that is.
I think you are in danger of putting carts before horses here..

Although the current job on the slop sheet is "mentoring" (whatever that is..) I would be hesitant to base our choice of standard infantry weapon on this task..

The Diemaco C8 is a short barrel carbine, which although compact and handy, does not compare with the capabilities of either an L85 or even an M16A2 in performance terms. I wholly agree that a C8 is useful for close quarter assault and close protection (although perhaps a little too powerful in terms of collateral damage?). From my own experience however trying to engage a man size target beyond 200m is a bit problematic (as it is of course with any of the AK family!). It you actually want to engage a potentially dangerous enemy at anything beyond pistol range, I would much rather have an L85, with which I can almost guarantee to drop anyone up to at least 400m in any conditions..*

You also may not be aware that the C8 is notoriously picky about what ammo you feed it, which is OK for the Speshul People who have an account with Purdey, but not for Tommy Atkins when stuck in a FOB at the shitty end of the log chain!

To suggest that carrying a particular type of weapon impairs your ability to teach and "mentor" folk with a different type of weapon is, I suggest, rather a weak argument. A properly trained skilly should be able to teach anyone to shoot anything from a flintlock to a ray gun.. (but don't get me into a shit'n shovel discussion at this juncture..) To base our small arms weapon policy on what our friends/enemies are using is patently insane..

..just remember why we "had" to use 7.62x51 and now 5.56 instead of .280 or 4.85!

* I did say "almost"!
 
Last edited:
I had a running battle with a scroat of a civvie armourer who had a bore guage which he used to check "cleanliness" with..
I could never work out where he got this from and whether it was kosher.. I sincerely doubt it! The problem was he hid behind the QM, who was also a scroat of the highest order...
Grantham?
 
I couldn't possibly comment..!
That will be a yes then that utter skiplicker in the armoury was an arrogant Tosser I took to taking so long to clean any weapon issued to me at Grantham that he was getting impatient to go home and would take the weapon no mater what the condition
I used to love the way he would clear a weapon whilst pointing it at your chest
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Also consider that Spec Inf, whilst they may be friendly with the nation they are training, may not be in friendly country. The potential necessity for them to defend themselves in unfriendly circumstances, in a foreign environment with zero support and the dangers associated with that cannot be understated. Therefore there is reasonable justification for Spec Inf to request weapon systems that will give them an edge in terms of speed and ease of use, particularly if
returning fire from within soft skinned vehicles or urban environments.
They aren't a USSF ODA that will be inserted into the middle of nowhere with zero support. They're a regular unit with a brief training cadre who will take over the role of training 3rd world armies in safe circumstances; a role that's currently filled by normal battalions.

There are many circumstances in which the C8 is the better weapon and I think serious consideration should be given to making it our main infantry weapon, but the Spec Inf request has far more to do with waltism and trying to look ally than any real requirement. Ditto 4/73's request for special helmets and C8s.
 
I don’t think that is correct.

The SA80 is the family of weapons (rifle, LSW - standing for ‘Small arms for the 80’s or something’) with the L85 being the designation of the rifle - so if you fired the ‘SA80 rifle’ then you fired the L85.
Before SA80 it was the Enfield Weapons System or colloquially the Dinky Toy.
 
Also consider that Spec Inf, whilst they may be friendly with the nation they are training, may not be in friendly country. The potential necessity for them to defend themselves in unfriendly circumstances, in a foreign environment with zero support and the dangers associated with that cannot be understated. Therefore there is reasonable justification for Spec Inf to request weapon systems that will give them an edge in terms of speed and ease of use, particularly if
returning fire from within soft skinned vehicles or urban environments.
They aren't a USSF ODA that will be inserted into the middle of nowhere with zero support. They're a regular unit with a brief training cadre who will take over the role of training 3rd world armies in safe circumstances; a role that's currently filled by normal battalions.

There are many circumstances in which the C8 is the better weapon and I think serious consideration should be given to making it our main infantry weapon, but the Spec Inf request has far more to do with waltism and trying to look ally than any real requirement. Ditto 4/73's request for special helmets and C8s.
Don't 4/73 purposefully drop into nowhere with little back up.

An given an ODA recently cocked it up, C8 or not, I'd suggest the weapon and helmet combo probably doesn't help as much as they thought....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There are many circumstances in which the C8 is the better weapon and I think serious consideration should be given to making it our main infantry weapon, but the Spec Inf request has far more to do with waltism and trying to look ally than any real requirement. Ditto 4/73's request for special helmets and C8s.
Probably more to keep up with their reserves who've had the helmets at least for a couple of years.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Probably more to keep up with their reserves who've had the helmets at least for a couple of years.
Exactly my point about allyness and waltism. Those are non-ballistic bump helmets designed for parachuting and climbing, neither of which are routinely in-role for HAC. What possible operational logic was there for buying those?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Exactly my point about allyness and waltism. Those are non-ballistic bump helmets designed for parachuting and climbing, neither of which are routinely in-role for HAC. What possible operational logic was there for buying those?
You can't dismiss user opinion as being valid. Not everything is easily quantifiable... ;)
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top