SA80 Replacement on the distant horizon ?

[Himmler74]

The thing is, with this thread like many other threads, on the sensible part of the the site actual end users of the weapons, tactics are being corrected by those who have not used those in recent conflicts.

Ive seen posts saying we should be able to return individual accurate fire, is that in a begin environment when the enemy is standing not moving, not returning fire? That the enemy suppress?

Why do people think close combat is any different from WW1? Rounds vs hits vs KIA?

I understand this has become the unauthorised “British Legion”
of military websites for veterans, those that cling on, oh and the Russian troll @PhotEx.

Please understand fire and manoeuvre whilst under contact is emotional combined with the weight carried, identifying, engaging is laughable at the ranges being discussed Unless you have ISTAR. Then it’s even painfully slow to engage unless those on the ground have PID.

Those that worship the L1a1 and slate the L85a2/3 have never used both when needed.

The PDT for Ops has a very good range package, very good.

@Cold_Collation mentioned a share of 9mm carbines, along side of the issued pistol? Could he answer how he would defeat peer body armour? Sustain the logistical chain for a example the Carbine version of the L85 doesn’t provide?


Just be realistic, two way ranges are very Confusing especially with multiple guns on. Not like the ambushes on Banner.

 

[PhotEx]

Exactly - position and hold and natural alignment are the main factors. If you are familiar with your weapon you know how much slack/graunch to take up before finalising your aim and releasing your shot. Yes, the L85 trigger was not good but with practice (notice the theme here), it was not a major handicap.

No1 son, ex Army, was astonished at how much better the tigger pull on my AR with a 2 stage trigger is compared to an SA80, and how much easier he found it to group well.
Even the standard trigger group is better than the L85’s toffee trigger, but the two stage trigger - zero slack, no graunch, breaks like glass - is night and day.

its one of the SA80’s endemic issues, arguably one of the worst trigger pulls of any service rifle, and it’s an unfixable issue. And as any good shot knows, the trigger is the heart, literally, of the action. In an of itself, the introduction of the C8 with its vastly better trigger will raise standards

 

[Buttmaster General]

No1 son, ex Army, was astonished at how much better the tigger pull on my AR with a 2 stage trigger is compared to an SA80, and how much easier he found it to group well.
Even the standard trigger group is better than the L85’s toffee trigger, but the two stage trigger - zero slack, no graunch, breaks like glass - is night and day.

its one of the SA80’s endemic issues, arguably one of the worst trigger pulls of any service rifle, and it’s an unfixable issue. And as any good shot knows, the trigger is the heart, literally, of the action. In an of itself, the introduction of the C8 with its vastly better trigger will raise standards

Not going to argue there - but I will keep coming back to my main point that rounds down the range to learn familiarity with your weapon and its characteristics (like a crappy trigger) has no substitute. Your personal weapon should be an extension of you, then you can focus on the important stuff (like keeping you and your comrades alive and doing damage to the bad guys), rather than trying to make your weapon go bang in the right place.

The times that I saw the 'background activities' become more important than the range work really gripped my shit.

 

[Himmler74]

No1 son, ex Army, was astonished at how much better the tigger pull on my AR with a 2 stage trigger is compared to an SA80, and how much easier he found it to group well.
Even the standard trigger group is better than the L85’s toffee trigger, but the two stage trigger - zero slack, no graunch, breaks like glass - is night and day.

its one of the SA80’s endemic issues, arguably one of the worst trigger pulls of any service rifle, and it’s an unfixable issue. And as any good shot knows, the trigger is the heart, literally, of the action. In an of itself, the introduction of the C8 with its vastly better trigger will raise standards

Again please explain your operational experience wi either the C7/8 or L85a2/3?

Or any rifle on a deployment?

 

[Cromarty]

You have to remember that if engagements are at 300m+ that the enemy also has to be proficient shots with the right weapon. As that weapon is usually the AK47 family and training consists mainly on looking cool and manly, it’s gives us distinct advantages.

Are we fighting the enemy or our own doctrine?

Surely you don't want to rely on the enemy being crap shots.

 

[postman_twit]

Both SA80 and SLR in service in GW1.

And SMG!

 

[Caecilius]

Pish. The bulk of any difference comes from decent position. I've got no doubt it makes a difference in pistol shooting (hence the American obsession with triggers), but in my experience it makes less of a difference than you insist; although it seems to be a much-repeated cry from the bULLPupz ar ComMIe EuroTRAsh! faction of internet gun enthusiasts. But given that you're never fired the L85, I'm not sure of your basis for comparison. I'd far rather ask @Caecilius, at least he's used both.

I was fine with the L85 trigger, and I'm used to a match-grade Anschutz action. I've fired 300m standard rifle alongside 300m free rifle; outperforming people with ten times less trigger weight.

If aftermarket triggers make all the difference, how come the L85 keeps beating the M16 when BACST goes across to Fort Benning?

Both rifles are good at different things. I like the ergonomics of the C8/ARs and they feel nicer to use than the SA80 because they're newer and have slightly better engineering*. Does that, in itself, make a difference to accuracy? Probably not. I certainly haven't noticed the trigger making a difference - it probably helps with competition target shooting where firers are really testing the limits of the weapon. Combat shooting is mostly well within the limits of the weapon.

The AR design also has its issues. Once you've strapped stuff to the front of it the balance starts to get very front heavy. That's fine for CQB but not great for anything at any real range, where the balance of a bullpup makes it much easier to keep the weapon on target when fatigued.

Horses for courses. Personally, the best weapon I've ever played with is the Tavor. I haven't fired it much but it immediately felt like the balance of the SA80 with even better ergonomics than the C8. It also has all the barrel length advantages that a bullpup brings.


*Half the SA80s are so shagged out that the trigger mechanism housing wobbles when attached to the top of the rifle. That's sub optimal to say the least.

 

[longtimeout]

Maybe this is all being looked at the wrong way...

Next time the UK finds itself in need of warm bodies somewhere heated, why not deploy a company of armchair experts, equipped however they see fit.

I see it as a win-win result, whatever happens.

 

[JT0475]

*Half the SA80s are so shagged out that the trigger mechanism housing wobbles when attached to the top of the rifle. That's sub optimal to say the least.

I think you'll find that was a design feature
(They were doing that when I first got my hands on one in 1990)

 

[PhotEx]

Not going to argue there - but I will keep coming back to my main point that rounds down the range to learn familiarity with your weapon and its characteristics (like a crappy trigger) has no substitute. Your personal weapon should be an extension of you, then you can focus on the important stuff (like keeping you and your comrades alive and doing damage to the bad guys), rather than trying to make your weapon go bang in the right place.

The times that I saw the 'background activities' become more important than the range work really gripped my shit.

Soldiers shouldn’t have to work around a weapons innate faults, they shouldn’t. Its simply immoral to supply an Army with such a flawed rifle.
Far too much time is spent teaching people to work around the SA80’s catalogue of innate design and perverse handling issues.

But that’s what happens when a weapon is designed by old men in brown shop coats with no experience designing any rifle, who tested it prone taking considered shots on warm sunny sunny days on a range, and pronounced it ‘perfection’. And no one in Land had the balls to throw it back at them, reject it and tell them it was utter crap.

 

[TamH70]

I think you'll find that was a design feature
(They were doing that when I first got my hands on one in 1990)

The ones I had a cabby on in my time with the Regs and T.A were doing the same until I quit in late 2000.

And this was the proper A1 versions, with the fencing around the magazine catch to stop the thing dumping mags when you got a bit of a wriggle on and other work done to them, not just the first-gen versions.

 

[Cold_Collation]

Soldiers shouldn’t have to work around a weapons innate faults, they shouldn’t. Its simply immoral to supply an Army with such a flawed rifle.
Far too much time is spent teaching people to work around the SA80’s catalogue of innate design and perverse handling issues.

But that’s what happens when a weapon is designed by old men in brown shop coats with no experience designing any rifle, who tested it prone taking considered shots on warm sunny sunny days on a range, and pronounced it ‘perfection’. And no one in Land had the balls to throw it back at them, reject it and tell them it was utter crap.

No. SA80 was value-engineered over and over. See the video I posted previously. Then RO was being privatised and needed a big order. This is probably the one time on ARRSE that I’ll say blame Thatcher. Land didn’t have a say. For years, the official line was that the weapon was perfect, and it was impressed upon the army.

But at the time all sorts was going on. 85 Pattern combats were utterly shìte. BCH finished my career and that of others.

You pay for what you get, in all ways.

It took decades but it, SA80, finally works well. Would we be starting the journey where we are? No. But we are where we are. Is it time to be thinking about what’s next? Undoubtedly.

But stop making shìt up.

 

[Cold_Collation]

The thing is, with this thread like many other threads, on the sensible part of the the site actual end users of the weapons, tactics are being corrected by those who have not used those in recent conflicts.

Ive seen posts saying we should be able to return individual accurate fire, is that in a begin environment when the enemy is standing not moving, not returning fire? That the enemy suppress?

Why do people think close combat is any different from WW1? Rounds vs hits vs KIA?

I understand this has become the unauthorised “British Legion”
of military websites for veterans, those that cling on, oh and the Russian troll @PhotEx.

Please understand fire and manoeuvre whilst under contact is emotional combined with the weight carried, identifying, engaging is laughable at the ranges being discussed Unless you have ISTAR. Then it’s even painfully slow to engage unless those on the ground have PID.

Those that worship the L1a1 and slate the L85a2/3 have never used both when needed.

The PDT for Ops has a very good range package, very good.

@Cold_Collation mentioned a share of 9mm carbines, along side of the issued pistol? Could he answer how he would defeat peer body armour? Sustain the logistical chain for a example the Carbine version of the L85 doesn’t provide?


Just be realistic, two way ranges are very Confusing especially with multiple guns on. Not like the ambushes on Banner.

Blimey, you’ve got a bit of a hard-on for me on this thread.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that if your criterion was 25m range maximum, then ditch rifles and use pistols/SMGs. I didn’t specify calibre or stopping power. Oh, and the preposition was utter nonsense, as was only training out to 25m.

Actually read what I’ve written and understand it before flinging poo.

 

[Harry Skinters]

Yes, the ADF Tri-service Federation Guard use That Rifle.

Is that the guys in Star Wars with the red cloaks?

 

[CptDanjou]

The thing is, with this thread like many other threads, on the sensible part of the the site actual end users of the weapons, tactics are being corrected by those who have not used those in recent conflicts.

I dont comment on tactics or what happened in recent conflicts , only the firearms and their capabilities , I get a lot of first hand feed back through mates which include serving Them, Para`s and RM`s , no RAF regiment though.

 

[PhotEx]

No. SA80 was value-engineered over and over. See the video I posted previously. Then RO was being privatised and needed a big order. This is probably the one time on ARRSE that I’ll say blame Thatcher. Land didn’t have a say. For years, the official line was that the weapon was perfect, and it was impressed upon the army.

But at the time all sorts was going on. 85 Pattern combats were utterly shìte. BCH finished my career and that of others.

You pay for what you get, in all ways.

It took decades but it, SA80, finally works well. Would we be starting the journey where we are? No. But we are where we are. Is it time to be thinking about what’s next? Undoubtedly.

But stop making shìt up.

value engineering, and yes, having worked in a company that made parts for it, I know just how valued the engineering wasn't, RO didn’t have a clue how to tolerance bent/stamped parts, but it was the least of it’s problems.

many people think the SA80 was a development of the Jansen Rifle, a true bottom up bullpup design, but it isn’t. It’s a very badly reverse engineered AR-18, a not too bad cheap and cheerful conventional rifle, turned around and the trigger connected up with a bent coat hanger.

And laughable thing about the SA80? It’s actually longer than an AR-18 that comes with a rather nifty folding stock - giving a full sized barrel in a very confined vehicle friendly compact package.

and the SA80 now? It works, finally, after well over £3,000 per rifle spent to date on the initial purchase and endless redesigns, (it cost more for the A2 update than buying new M4/16’s - hint, the resdesign was easy, HK‘s G36 is another AR-18 clone), but is still an utterly gash design that pays not a single nod to user ergonomics - reach around under Your armpit to change the magazine, then reach around over the top to cock it.... sweet jesus!

 

[dingerr]

endless redesigns,

1 redesign to address the initial issues to make it A2.

Hardly endless.

 

[dingerr]

(it cost more for the A2 update than buying new M4/16’s

No it didn’t.

 

[Drazyl]

And laughable thing about the SA80? It’s actually longer than an AR-18 that comes with a rather nifty folding stock - giving a full sized barrel in a very confined vehicle friendly compact package.

Can you fire the AR-18 with the stock folded?

 

[Cold_Collation]

value engineering, and yes, having worked in a company that made parts for it, I know just how valued the engineering wasn't, RO didn’t have a clue how to tolerance bent/stamped parts, but it was the least of it’s problems.

many people think the SA80 was a development of the Jansen Rifle, a true bottom up bullpup design, but it isn’t. It’s a very badly reverse engineered AR-18, a not too bad cheap and cheerful conventional rifle, turned around and the trigger connected up with a bent coat hanger.

And laughable thing about the SA80? It’s actually longer than an AR-18 that comes with a rather nifty folding stock - giving a full sized barrel in a very confined vehicle friendly compact package.

and the SA80 now? It works, finally, after well over £3,000 per rifle spent to date on the initial purchase and endless redesigns, (it cost more for the A2 update than buying new M4/16’s - hint, the resdesign was easy, HK‘s G36 is another AR-18 clone), but is still an utterly gash design that pays not a single nod to user ergonomics - reach around under Your armpit to change the magazine, then reach around over the top to cock it.... sweet jesus!

Lots of words which don't actually respond to what I said.