New Rifle

#1
Is it true that the armed forces are getting a new rifle? I've heard from lots of sources that we're getting it upgraded to the G36. Apparently its fired 25,000 rounds without cleaning or a blockage and has been run over by a tank and dropped in water etc etc. Has anyone else heard about this or is there any official word out?

Thats a pic of it, but I think if it is true its more likely we'll go for the K model which is a little smaller and therefore lighter, but thats just my opinion and im a stupid cadet so don't have a go at me if I'm wrong............please.
 
#3
new rifle in for 2015, got told that yesterday so we can look forward to at least another 9 years of the sa80. isnt that good news....
 
#4
It's starting to look like a Johnny Seven (OMA). Just a few more developments and it'll have the Browning slung underneath.
 
#5
why the fu(k didnt the mod just get the g36's now instead of spending millions on the lost cause that is the sa80!
FOOLS!

S5
 
#7
I bet we still end up buying the G36 in 2020 as well when there's probably some new plasma rifle or something daft out.
 
#8
yep.
did you know it would have cost the MOD about 2/3 of the amount to issue the entire army with M16's than the fu(king A2's!
 
#9
Yes, the SA80 was a big mistake. Another case of the MOD not wanting to buy 'off the shelf' and buying British trash. TBH the SA80 A2 isn't that bad and most of you soldiers who do the whinging about it aren't even infantrymen and will never fire the rifle in a combat situation so why worry about it if it's just stuck in your cab on operations! A rifle doesn't make a professional force at the end of the day.
 
#10
307 said:
I bet we still end up buying the G36 in 2020 as well when there's probably some new plasma rifle or something daft out.
Nah - health n safety will make it mandatory that all armies of the future will play "Rock, Paper & Scissiors" in a best of 3 tournament. (safety scissors) to decide who won.

Rincewind
 
#11
i quite like the A2 version
never had any problem with it at all
the a1 was shit but i think the improvement of the mags has gone a long way to sortin a lot of the original problems
 
#12
blueshoes said:
i quite like the A2 version
never had any problem with it at all
the a1 was s*** but i think the improvement of the mags has gone a long way to sortin a lot of the original problems
And a lot of the mag problems are down to the Toms anyway - putting 'em in the pouches up-side-down, then lobbing their kit out of a truck from about 4/5 feet and wondering why the 'lips' bend and they get feed problems.... sigh....... Still happens with the new ones, its all about education, education, education..... Good God, who do i sound like?........
 
#13
blueshoes said:
i quite like the A2 version
never had any problem with it at all
the a1 was s*** but i think the improvement of the mags has gone a long way to sortin a lot of the original problems
That said you do need to tape up the bottoms of them, know of at least two occasions where the bottom's popped off in not the most convinient places (Basrah on top cover).

Never had the problem with the mag lips, found that those putting mags up were the ones that lost rounds on tour.
 
#14
Are you still being taught to scour the hell out of them with Scotchbrite? That was identified by H&K as one of the major reasons for the unreliability of the A1, and Armalite (it is, after all, a bullpupped AR18) says that abrasive should never ever be used under any circumstances.
 
#15
A weapon should still be able to function properley whether scotchbrite is used or not! At the end of the day scotchbrite is the quickest and easiest way to remove light carbon deposit. Soldiers will use it no matter what the gun manufacturer says. Other weapons such as the GPMG, 50 cal HMG and minimi don't suffer reliability problems through scothbrite use! Personnaly i think it is the manufacturer trying to pass the buck for a poorly designed weapon system.
 
#16
Scotch Bright will remove coatings and surface treatments which are critical to the longevity of the parts -- or are you suggesting the weapons should be made out of untreated materials, just so that Tom can scour the crap out of them with a Brillo pad, despite the fact that rusting and excess wear will then take place? The coatings and treatments are there for a reason -- accidentally removing them with abrasive because it's "easier" removes the advantages that they give, and makes it "harder" in the long run.

An example: a rifle I have has the moving parts surface treated such that light carbon fouling simply wipes off with a bit of solvent (not that I was ever issued solvent, only light weapons oil). If I scoured it, I would remove this treatment. I would then have to continue scouring to be able to remove the fouling at all. I used Gucci solvent with my issued weapon, and hardly had to scour at all (the only thing the solvent would not deal with was the metallic marks on the boltface which the DS insisted were removed).

Really excessive long-term scouring will not only gradually change the dimensions of parts, but will also change the surface roughness, increasing the friction, increasing the susceptibility to fouling, and thus reducing the reliability of a weapon. In the case of hardening treatments, scouring them off will significantly increase the wear rate.

It really is incredibly counterproductive. I even know of someone who scoured the finish off the outside of his barrel!
 
#17
Further to last -- if somebody had spent hundreds of hours scouring the moving parts of your car with Scotchbrite to pass the white glove test after every time you drove it, and sometimes even when you didn't (and we're talking here about pistons, bushings, bearings, gearwork, valves etc) would you be terribly surprised if the reliability and performance of your car was affected? If no, why is this any different to a rifle?
 
#18
With what exactly are the innards coated with? I'd love to know!
 
#19
Soldier_5 said:
why the fu(k didnt the mod just get the g36's now instead of spending millions on the lost cause that is the sa80!
FOOLS!

S5
I would imagine it was part of a face saving (damage limitation) plan. The A2 is as reliable as the 36. and that is from one of the top guys at HK UK.

Dave
 
#20
Soldier_5 said:
yep.
did you know it would have cost the MOD about 2/3 of the amount to issue the entire army with M16's than the fu(king A2's!
The A2 has been proven to suffer from 1/2 the stopages of the M16 and that includes trials in desert environment!!!!!

Dave
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
msr The Intelligence Cell 7
B Aviation 5
Jip Travolta Current Affairs, News and Analysis 8

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top