SA-80 carbine to equip tank crews

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by stoatman, Feb 10, 2005.

?
  1. Good solution for the tankies needs

    24.6%
  2. They need carbines, but a cheaper, better model would have been better

    35.1%
  3. This is an expensive, politically motivated decision

    26.7%
  4. The firepower of the dismounted tank crew was fine with a couple of rifles & pistols

    13.6%

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. http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/preview_jul04.htm

    OK, so the unit cost of a converted L85A2 is around 1000 pounds (total cost - original rifle + mod [if anyone's got a more accurate figure, please post it or PM me]). This mod costs 715 pounds per rifle. Therefore total unit cost of an L85A2 carbine is around 1715 pounds. WTF??? There are all sorts of off-the-shelf carbines that cost less than this - hell, they could have had SIG 551/552s at Dutch commercial civvy prices (i.e. heavily inflated - govt sales from the manufacturer are far cheaper) for 1540 pounds per unit, or M4 type carbines for around 550!

    In addition - if the barrel is shortened by around a foot to about 1/2 its original length, it'll be about 10 inches long. This must balance abysmally (hell, the full length one is bad), and I would not like to fire it with, let alone without hearing protection (I've fired a SIG 552 which has about the same length of barrel in a conventional layout & it was very noisy, with a terriffic muzzle blast. It was also so short that I was cramped when firing it - a bullpup with a barrel this short will be almost unuseable, and the muzzle climb will be disasterous!)

    And a "new 20rd magazine has been developped" - what about the Colt/Armalite 20 rounders? They work great, and cost 4/5 of sod all.

    Any tankies who've tested it care to comment???
     
  2. From the pictures it looks like a ridiculous waste of money - a few inches lopped off the front, making it even more unbalanced whilst hardly saving any weight or bulk. Looks dangerous (to the user) as well - I bet someone eventually shoots their own finger off....

    Why not just buy off-the-shelf M4s/Dimacos or HK53s instead????
     
  3. You can get dimarco's with a shortened barrel with extendable stock which are really quite short and one would imagine a hell of a lot cheaper, more accurate and reliable than the the 'carbine'.

    When will we be issued with the equipment that we deserve rather than the kit which is most politically popular ?
     
  4. Its the best rifle in the world so the carbine will be the best carbine in the world . soldiers will gladly trade in their mp5 to get hold of on of these.
    bollocks its another pile of crap
     
  5. The original cost of the rifle is a sunk cost. Nobody can do anything that will bring that cash back. Therefore, it is not a decision-relevant cost.

    Apart from the cost of the conversion, other decision-relevant costs are any extra costs of training on a new weapon and technical support for it. I don't know what these are, but I doubt if they are negligible.
     
  6. Should have gone for the HK53 - now thats a decent gat!

    Anyone remember the other shortened L85 - think it was the 'para' version - had an L86 foregrip and shortened barrel. Well, it's not around now so that must say something about it's performance.
     
  7. Not being a tanky, it probably isn't right for me to comment, but I will :wink: I'd agree with Vasco, that the original conversion costs have already been used and it's much better to equip troops with a firearm they are familiar with. That's the reason why US SWAT teams often go for the same configuration M16/M4 layout and there was a 16 or 4 built to use AK74 mags.

    Now if the Armed Forces had sense and dumped the SA80 series, then you acquire the weapon system of choice. As that won't be until about 2015, we're stuck with it. If we need a carbine then it should be one with which the troops are already familiar.

    Imagine the outcry if tank crews got C8 Diemarco's and the PBI retained the A2?
     
  8. I think that this would have been a perfect chance to try out a new system, given that it's only 1400 units. Even if you just factor in the A2 mod and then the carbine mod, that's still around 1175 per unit (92M for 200k mods, 1M for 1400 mods). You can buy all sorts of gucci kit off the shelf for that money - even if you factor in training, parts, spares etc you could get better rifles for less money.

    Scaleyback's right though - if the tankies got gucci C8s then the PBI would be seriously jelous, and might start to doubt the propaganda that the L85A2 is the best rifle in the world :roll:
     
  9. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer


    PROPAGANDA ?

    Shame on you Stoaty, you know the politicos all have our best interests at heart !
     
  10. It might be a good enough weapon out to say 200m or so. Yes they could have bought purpose built carbines more cheaply but if you add in all the extra spare parts and new training the cost might have been much higher.
    My concern is that even with a foot taken off the barrel it might still be too long for the CR2 commander and gunner to keep it anywhere to hand in the turret. 9mm is pretty useless but at least its permanently attached to you in a holster. Sure, you can dig carbine out of a turret bin when you need to go on stag, for an o-group or a poo etc. But in a "real" situation if the tank is on fire and you need skidaddle then I expect it will be left behind.
    The acid test of this weapon will be if the cav ever deploy to NI or Iraq armed with them. I doubt it.
     
  11. What happened to all the SMGs? Were they all flogged off or were some/any preserved?

    Now that was a bit of a short sighted decision. :roll:
     
  12. [​IMG]


    LOL, it looks like something made for an 8 year old!
     
  13. I think it was clearly designed ergonomically to fit Scaramangas sidekick Nic Nack

    Still better than popping out of the cupola of a CVR(T)and scrabbling around in the side bins trying to find your rifle :wink:
     
  14. Naa, it's meant for:
    [​IMG]
     
  15. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    No mate, it was designed by an eight year old...... :(