Westpoint

So every solider that shoots is gone wast 21,000 rounds.A few problems with that.

1)you would need to genetically modifiy your troops to be large enough to carry all that ammo
2)you taxes are going to go through the roof if you send the many thousands of troops that shoot that many rounds in twenty seconds.

So much crap from one person

[edit on 27-6-2004 by weirdo]

Could you imagine all the logistical problems with Metal Storm. 1,000,000 rounds per minute. I doubt they will use the system to its full capacity.

How much does a round cost?

Lets say a round cost 1 penny (British). They must cost more than that really musn't they? I have absolutely no idea really.

If fired at 1 million RPM, if I have my maths right, that would cost £10,000 for 1 minute from 1 weapon. Wonder how you would transport all those bullets.

the bullets come in clips one pack has the amount of clips it takes to fill up the gun you cannot reload them in conventional way once the pack is empty throw it away you cant fill it up yourself you have to put in a new pack but I don't know about the cost.

Metal storm is being developed by the Australians mainly FOR the US...

Metalstorm is not really THAT useful, it's very much hyped and a system that relies on electronics can't be very durable (I.E. you couldn't accidentally drop it and expect it to work:lol and a simple EMP could take out all of those weapons...

Ofcourse, MS weapons need to be restricted in their RoF to a managable level, about 750~950rpm...

otherwise it would eat bullets like pop-corn, not a good thing in battle, esspecially since they are usually always low on supplies...

AK 7.62 rounds go for about 20bucks per 50 rounds (less for HP ammo), so do the math...(40 cents per bullet?)

Originally posted by WestPoint23
you know who is going to win that competition next time the americans with their metal storm tech you could fire 21.000 rounds in 20 sec o less

[edit on 27-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

Excuse me? Whose metalstorm tech? And that particular model cannot be hand held. Do you know how metalstorm works?

Originally posted by UK Wizard
from the info it looks like the SA80 doesn't work when it's hot and/or dusty

No automatic rifle works when it's hot and/or dusty, not in extreme circumstances. Not even the legendary AK47 will forgive a moron who allows the workings to clog with sand.

The problem with the rifles is as much the ammo as the rifle. In the extreme cold of Afghanistan the Royals were finding, as did the Yanks, that the cordite in the 5.56mm NATO round wasn't as effective as in the usual training temperatures, which is a little ironic given the Royal's Norway training and all buut, that's the reason the Arctic-Warfare Magnum (correct designation someone?) comes in such calibres a .300in Magnum, to be effective in the extreme cold.

You subject a peice of metal to daily temperature extremes that make it too hot to hold and then you fire a few thousand rounds of ammunition through it, of course it will fail. Live in the desert for a few years, pick up a shifter that some idiot left in the sun and see what it does to your hand!

No automatic rifle works when it's hot and/or dusty, not in extreme circumstances. Not even the legendary AK47 will forgive a moron who allows the workings to clog with sand.

Thank you, somebody is now talking sence. something else is the dust in the deserts will stick to the oil which is used to lubricate the weapons (all weapons even the simplest bolt action weapon needs oil) which will cause the working parts of the weapon to jam.

Personally I have used both the such loved by the computer geek M4 and the hated L85 and L86 (LSW), they both performed just as well, and that isn't hear say, I have used both in operational enviroments.

Something I would like to add is that the modifications made by H&K have improved the weapon and reduced cleaning on the weapons thanks to Tefal (They have covered most of the parts in non-stick teflon).

Something I noticed at the begining of this thread, L85 is lighter than the M16, shorter than the M16 and has a very simila barrel length to the M16, a simila rate of fire and a similia mussle velocity and stopping power, and as a matter of fact it's much more accurate and easyer to fire.

But, the L86, what were Enfield thinking when they designed it, it has the same rate of fire and might as well be the same stopping power and mussle velocity as the L85 but its bigger and heavier. It is more accurate but this isn't actually required. Thank god they have now replaced it with the Section Automatic Weapon (SAW) Minimi a belt fed 5.56MM machene gun.

Oh and the G36, its a waste of space it looks nice and thats where the good points end, a few people I know were involved in some trials with it (including myself) and we found the L85 to be better in nearly every way.

For you information, Lt. D Coy. 1st Btln Parachute Regt

I myself have had no problems with the SA80 or its modified brother. I too have used it operationally in Iraq, Afghan, Bosnia and Sierra Leone and never had a problem. I agree with a comment made earlier that if you look after your weapon and clean it regulary you shouldnt have a problem.

In fact the only problem i have had is that after firing way too many rounds on Auto and im talking about 40+ magazines that the rifle was so hot it was firing rounds on its own without pulling the trigger. I guess thats what happens when you have a mad range day where you literally have to waste as much ammo as you can so the skinflints dont have to sign it over to the new regiment taking over

Para how long you been in? I myself was 1 Para for 8 year

[edit on 9-6-2007 by thesaint]

Like a couple of others in this thread I have fired the SA-80. Not the latest improved model but the main original one which I'd assume is still the most plentiful.


My personal opinion was that I doubt it's the best available. It did jam quite frequently although I don't really know whether other rifles jammed in the same situations.

My pet hate was that it is joined along the middle of the mechanism housing and so it has a tendency to rattle if you hould it only by the pistol grip.

The SUSAT (sp?) sight was pretty ok for the times.



The popular view at the time was that the Austrian Steyr AUG was a much better rifle - the Irish, Australians and to an extent British units used it so I did come across people who'd work with both and they tended to prefer the AUG. But I guess part of that is the old "grass always greener on the other side of the fence" thing.
Steyr AUG:


Another good design is the French one, FAMAS. That overcomes the bullpup problem of being only right-handed firing position by having a reversable extraction block somehow. Never seen opne first hand but sounds like a cool idea. Also comes with bipod as standard:



My personal favorite for a replacement, based more on what I've read than personal experience, is the Steyr ACR. It fires fleschettes instead of normal bullets so it's much more accurate under normal conditions and has a better armour penetration level. Obvious drawback is the adoption of a new round type gives a logistical problem. At any rate the Steyr ACR concept seems to have been dropped by the manufacturer, seemingly for financial reasons rather than as a reflection on the design.

Originally posted by para3183

Thank you, somebody is now talking sence. something else is the dust in the deserts will stick to the oil which is used to lubricate the weapons (all weapons even the simplest bolt action weapon needs oil) which will cause the working parts of the weapon to jam.

Personally I have used both the such loved by the computer geek M4 and the hated L85 and L86 (LSW), they both performed just as well, and that isn't hear say, I have used both in operational enviroments.

Something I would like to add is that the modifications made by H&K have improved the weapon and reduced cleaning on the weapons thanks to Tefal (They have covered most of the parts in non-stick teflon).

Something I noticed at the begining of this thread, L85 is lighter than the M16, shorter than the M16 and has a very simila barrel length to the M16, a simila rate of fire and a similia mussle velocity and stopping power, and as a matter of fact it's much more accurate and easyer to fire.

But, the L86, what were Enfield thinking when they designed it, it has the same rate of fire and might as well be the same stopping power and mussle velocity as the L85 but its bigger and heavier. It is more accurate but this isn't actually required. Thank god they have now replaced it with the Section Automatic Weapon (SAW) Minimi a belt fed 5.56MM machene gun.

Oh and the G36, its a waste of space it looks nice and thats where the good points end, a few people I know were involved in some trials with it (including myself) and we found the L85 to be better in nearly every way.

For you information, Lt. D Coy. 1st Btln Parachute Regt

OK fella. Couple of points. The SA80 is over a kilo heavier than the M16, more so if you add the SUSAT. Anyone who had carried both of these weapons for more than 3 seconds would know this.

The SA80 actually works better when heavly oiled, even in sandy contitions. A Para officer would know this. If you want to check it's in Pam 5 vol 2.

The British don't refer to the Minimi as the SAW and never have done, we refer to it as the LMG. A Para officer should know this.

The LSW has not been replaced by the LMG, it has been supplemented by it. The 2 LMGs replaced 2 rifles at section level. Any infantryman would know this.

Oh, and 'Btln' is not the correct abbreviation of 'battalion', it is 'bn'. A day one, week one recruit knows this.

I think that 'D Coy' is an apt way to end your post sonshine, because that's just what you are. If you're going to come on here and pretend to be something you're not, at least be sure there's no one on who may actually know what they're talking about and do a bit of research first.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by PaddyInf]

Paddy, I don't think we should judge anyone too harshly on jargon. I've fired the L-85/SA-80 and I call it a "gun" these days not a "weapon" or "rifle" - some of us, maybe Para' in this instance, pitch our vocab at the audiance rather than the self-endulging observance of British military jargon. Most people reading this either aren't military and/or are American - if we start calling the SAW the "LMG" they won't have a clue what we're on about and if they Google it they'll probably find a pretty picture of the Bren gun with the NATO cartridge. Hey I just spelt Brengun as two words, I must be a fake lol lol lol.

The post was full of very elementary errors, e.g. the weight of the rifle, the use of oil to maintain reliability and the replacement of the LSW with the LMG. Are you really trying to tell me that an infantry officer, particularly one from the new Special Forces Support Group (which is the new tasking for 1 Para), would not know these basics? The termanology errors I can excuse, the basic weapon handling errors I can't.

This is day-to-day, bread and butter stuff for an infantryman, and I don't know any who would make such BASIC errors. If this is the quality of officer that 1 Para are producing then maybe they weren't the best choice for SFSG after all.

As an afterthought, do you really think that an officer from SFSG would be on here spouting about the fact in his first post, on this type of forum, particularly considering that there is a D notice on their actions, membership and movements? The only people who brag about such things are those who have never been there.

Consider ignorance denied.

Originally posted by minimi

Originally posted by Hyperen


Yeah and it makes it more dangerous for some people to shoot because it can only be operated from right handed configuration because it is bullpup I read.
[edit on 26/6/04 by Hyperen]

This is an inherent problem with all bullpup designs due to the mechanism being back by the firers face. The cartridge case would be ejected into the firers cheek. Standard layout weapons have the cartridge case ejection forward, so if you fire it left handed, the cartridges just fly across infront of you.

[edit on 26-6-2004 by minimi]

Not all bullpups are restricted to right-hand use from the factory.

The F88 AuStyr is both left and right hand operable. Albeit not withnot tinkering (ie. not in the field).

F88 comes in both variants, all that has to be done is change a few parts inside with the lefthand variants and remove the ejection port cover and place it on the right side.

the main problem with a weapon that cannot be fired from both shoulders is that there is too much body exposure when firing around the left side of cover. The ability to change which side it can be fired from in an armoury is a waste of time. You need to be able to do it in the field or not at all. In a firefight you need to be able to pick up any weapon and use it straight away. The easiest way to do this with a bullpup rifle is to teach everyone to fire from one shoulder to a high standard.

Paddy, I assumed he was ex-para, presumably before the days of the SAW introduction which is last few years. SFSG is also a recent thing although of course the paras (lol, "paras"..... jargo boboo, um, "airbourne") always had an association with SF.

I don't make no claims, nor am I blindly defending Para, but I think ou're going a bit far.

Yet he talks about his experience of how the SA80A2 is such an impovement over the A1. Both weapons were introduced at the same time, with the Paras being some of the first issued with the LMG. He doesn't state anywhere that he is retired, and in any case it is EXTREMELY unusual in the British Army to retire at the rank of Lt.

Maybe I am going a bit far. It's just that this forum has a history of sprogs coming on here and spouting with 'authority' about subjects that they have no idea about. This was one post too many and I felt that I had to say something. I've been a NCO with a line regiment for many years, and it grates me to think that someone will come on here and make out that they have any idea about what beng a soldier is all about when the nearest they will ever get to a firefight is watching Blackhawk Down for the 100th time.

I'll tell you what, I'll leave him alone as this is adding nothing to the debate about the SA80. However if Para3183 wants to U2U me with any retorts I'll be happy to have a chat.

[/rant]

Again, I side with Paddy.

Terminology is important. Not only to the professional who wants to look good to those 'not in the know', but also to the reader who would like to believe that the poster knows what he or she is talking about.

For the record, I am a former weapons instructor and have taught Regular, TA and cadet forces for over 25 years. One thing I cannot abide is the incorrect use of terminology. Let's get the basics right people, and we won't bugger up the more important issues.

The weapon concerned is properly known as The Rifle, 5.56mm L85A1 or The Rifle, 5.56mm L85A2. SA80 is the slang name for both rifles because it was thought to have originally been manufactured in 1980, which is also incorrect.

Hyperen is correct when he says the weapon has been modified by H&K. It has and cost the British taxpayer about £91.5M.

UK Wiz said it is a heavier rifle. I'm afraid I take issue with this. The L1A1 SLR weighed approximately 10lbs 5 or 6 ozs with a fully charged mag on it and bayno fitted. The L84A1 or A2 with iron sights, mag and bayno fitted, weighs a couple of ounces heavier.

koji_K, see my comment above re SA80 and the L85A1/A2.

Minimi - The L86 is, IMHO, brilliant. I was an LSW gunner for 7 long and eventful years and I enjoyed shooting that baby every time.

People always blame the weapon, never the soldier. I remember when the AR15/M16 was introduced during the beginning of the Viet Nam debacle. THAT also had stoppage after stoppage - and all because soldiers were too lazy to learn how to clean it properly. Same with the L85A1/2!

HowlrunnerIV - automatic weapons DO work in hot and dusty conditions. I was up in the Djebel in Oman during the 70s with an L1A1 as a personal weapon, with a 7.62mm LMG at section level and also The General at Plt level.

The L1A1 mags held 20 rounds and the LMG took 30. We only used to load 16 and 26 rounds because of the grit that accumulated in the mags. Another thing we did with the L1A1 and the LMG, was after we had finished patrolling, we would strip the working parts out and place them on lint free cloths. The heat of the sun caused the gun oil to ooze from the working parts. We then washed them in hot soapy water, removing all bits of sand and grit, dried in the sun, then re-oiled. I personally used a gun oil called 009 which I believed was made by Parker Hale.

The General being 75% of our firepower, was treated like he should be, given all the love and attention a General deserves.

As for some Rupert calling the Minimi a 'SAW' well I'm sorry Paddy, but you know what these young subalterns are like!

And Paddy! NOBODY could have seen Blackhawk Down more times than me.

I have to agree with paddy that it is highly unlikely a Lt would be retired. 2nd Lt is the first rank amongst officers who are usually 19 year Sandhurst sprogs. Most of them make the Lt rank within a year so having one retired then he must have been crap at his job to stay Lt all the way to retirement.

Only other way would be someone who has gone from scratch right up through the ranks which again is very very rare and he probably spent most of his career with the SLR anyway.

As i sad the SA80 never let me down my trusty gat was very faithful to me providing it was well looked after and oiled up although not the best weapon in the world it works just fine much like the "Gimpy" which i must say was my most favoured weapon of choice

Yes in my days the pamphlets changed every 5 minutes and you spent more time going through the procedures such as "Forward and Assist" and such than firing off that first round but you got used to it and it became second nature