It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Replacement for SA80

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by UK Wizard
 


look the new improved sa80 is reliable and will continue as the main infantry weopen untill the next decade but you r right in saying, the g36 would be a suitable replacement and i have heard that the amrmed forces are discussing a replacement from heckler and koch




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
, the g36 would be a suitable replacement and i have heard that the amrmed forces are discussing a replacement from heckler and koch


Afraid not. There are no current "discussions" going on with anyone regarding the SA80 replacement. This is because the requirements for such a weapon have not been set by the forces.

The MoD have decided that the weapon system is good for quite a few more years yet. When they do decide to replace it there will need to be a set of requirements set followed by a lengthly trials stage involving a number of different weapons systems. This in itself can take a number of years. It's not just a matter of approaching a manufacturer and buying off the shelf.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by UK Wizard
 


Um I study guns a lot and was serving in the British army under the Taunton TA and can say firing the weapon first hand that it is a great gun...
Most of the posts or articles that you have read are probably talking about the L85 (not the SA 80) but the one in field use at the moment is the L86 aka the SA80! The American counterparts are in worse condition, mainly because of they are ot upgraded and back fire in to the face a lot! The main problem with the guns at the time was that they are being made with composite materials and they didn't react the same as steel when under pressure! that was the main failing of these weapon systems...but since the H&K make over they are a top notch weapon!
The configuration of the gun layout is old but that is why the British troops are the best in the world, because of their training and now they can shoot with both hands!
And a point I would like to make is that the bullpup design is greater than all others! Allowing for a longer barrel in a shorter gun, this is good! The F2000 being a bullpup design is ambidextrous as the cartridges are ejected out the front having no such problem as in the SA80!
However I disagree with your advice on the G36 and the F2000 for one simple reason...they are not what the British army are looking for! The F2000 is a space age look and although unique not as efficient on rounds as the SA80!
The G36 is the best choice at the moment because of the slow rate of fire but is still not as accurate as the SA80, the main thing us Brits pride ourself upon!
The biggest reason that there is no change is because they do not need any other weapon!



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


Paddy, I remember reading that prior to the introduction of the SA80, the Army had conducted extensive trials and had come down in favour of a Canadian weapon. The SA80 didn't even feature in their top three. Is this right or did I imagine it? If so, what was the Canadian weapon?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadowXIX
 


Have you been living under a rock?

(kididng)

L85A2 does have a GL and has had one for a longtime.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
Paddy, I remember reading that prior to the introduction of the SA80, the Army had conducted extensive trials and had come down in favour of a Canadian weapon. The SA80 didn't even feature in their top three. Is this right or did I imagine it? If so, what was the Canadian weapon?


I take it you're talking about the origional trials in the 1970s? If so I haven't got a clue. The only weapon that I can think of from those trials was the EM2 from which the SA80 was derived. This could be why the SA80 didn't feature - it didn't exist as the SA80!

Sorry, but I haven't got a clue about a Canadian weapon.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Maybe the canadian version of the M16?

C7 or whatever its called?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by maintainright
 

Could be. There was a cracking article on this which I thought I had kept. It not only listed the weapons the Army wanted but also the political reasons why they got lumbered with the SA80.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   

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]


It takes half a minute to revert the extractor on the FA MAS..



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Some people know what's best.





posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edmond
It takes half a minute to revert the extractor on the FA MAS..


30 seconds is FOREVER if you're out on patrol. You can't stop every time you come to a corner to swap the extractor around. The whole idea is for a soldier to be able to pick up any weapon and use it there and then. The choices are simple

1. Make the weapon ambidextrous (?sp). This means being able to swap hands at an instant, not a process that takes half a minute. This is not an easy process with a bullpup rifle.

2. Train all your soldiers to shoot right handed. This is easier in the UK as most recruits have never fired a rifle before and therefore don't have the muscle memory to 'unlearn'.

Remember the army wanted a short weapon that could be carried easily in a wagon. This restricted them to either a carbine, a rifle with a folding stock or a bullpup rifle. We're a bit traditional over here and put great stock in long range ability, so a carbine wasn't really an option. (point to note - this appears to have been a good choice considering the M4s reported poor stopping rates in Iraq compared with the higher ones stated by troops using the longer-barreled SA80). Farting about unfolding stocks takes time and extra movements. The British soldier was taught that the rifle should be ready to fire in an instant, and the traditionalists had an inherrant belief that folding stocks are not conducive to marksmanship.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf

I agree wholeheartedly with the above post by Paddy.

I simply cannot understand the philosophy beyind the apparent 'squirt & pray' method of engaging an enemy at even short to medium range.

Everybody who has ever discharged a weapon on full auto knows that the longer you keep your finger on the trigger, the more your rounds spray all over the place and invariably miss your intended target.

That is why the great British infantryman are probably the best shooters in the business.

It is, as Paddy has said, all about the application and type of fire we Brits have been taught to use in differing scenarios.

Of course if we Brits had a wagon train as long as the Yanks have, then maybe our fire discipline may, at times, become a little slack.

Nothing on earth beats a well aimed single shot - apart from a well aimed double tap which, the L85A2 is able to produce with minimum disruption of aim.

Now, if they could just put in a 2 ror 3 round burst facility on the L85..........

[edit on 14-7-2008 by fritz]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Most of the posts or articles that you have read are probably talking about the L85 (not the SA 80)


The SA80 is the L85. The SA80 A1 is the L85A1 and the SA80A2 (in current service is the L85A2). Simple really.

All British issue weapons are given an L prefix. The origins of this are a bit vague, but it is generally accepted that this stands for Land Service. The browning pistol is the L9A1, The minimi (para) is the L110A1, the GPMG is the L7A1, the L105A1 is the SIG P226, and so on. As a weapon is upgraded it is given a higher number after the 'A', so the L85A1 was upgraded and therefore became the SA80A2.


but the one in field use at the moment is the L86 aka the SA80!


The L86 is the Light Support Weapon (LSW), not the SA80.


Now, if they could just put in a 2 ror 3 round burst facility on the L85..........


They didn't have to, there was one already fitted to the end of the British soldiers hand.

Unfortunately the one fitted to the US soldiers hand was malfunctioning, hence one had to be fitted to the rifle instead. Bless 'em.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by PaddyInf]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by Edmond
It takes half a minute to revert the extractor on the FA MAS..


30 seconds is FOREVER if you're out on patrol. You can't stop every time you come to a corner to swap the extractor around. The whole idea is for a soldier to be able to pick up any weapon and use it there and then. The choices are simple

1. Make the weapon ambidextrous (?sp). This means being able to swap hands at an instant, not a process that takes half a minute. This is not an easy process with a bullpup rifle.

2. Train all your soldiers to shoot right handed. This is easier in the UK as most recruits have never fired a rifle before and therefore don't have the muscle memory to 'unlearn'.

Remember the army wanted a short weapon that could be carried easily in a wagon. This restricted them to either a carbine, a rifle with a folding stock or a bullpup rifle. We're a bit traditional over here and put great stock in long range ability, so a carbine wasn't really an option. (point to note - this appears to have been a good choice considering the M4s reported poor stopping rates in Iraq compared with the higher ones stated by troops using the longer-barreled SA80). Farting about unfolding stocks takes time and extra movements. The British soldier was taught that the rifle should be ready to fire in an instant, and the traditionalists had an inherrant belief that folding stocks are not conducive to marksmanship.



My answer was related to having a rifle used by left handed not to use it on the left shoulder for a right handed shooter.
Have users trained to use their rifle efficiently with their strong side is difficult enough.
Training everyone to use right shoulder? what about the 15 to 20 % odf users who use their left eye to aim hence shouldering on the left?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edmond
Have users trained to use their rifle efficiently with their strong side is difficult enough.
Training everyone to use right shoulder? what about the 15 to 20 % odf users who use their left eye to aim hence shouldering on the left?


I already answered this one, but I'll repeat myself.


Originally posted by PaddyInf
2. Train all your soldiers to shoot right handed. This is easier in the UK as most recruits have never fired a rifle before and therefore don't have the muscle memory to 'unlearn'.


To expand, our recruits don't have ready access to firearms prior to joining the Army (in general). Therefore we teach them from day 1 to shoot with their right eye. This works very well, even for the lefties. You only learn to shoot with your left eye if you are exposed to ambidextrous weapons, which our boys aren't.

You may think that this won't work, but we've been making it work for over 20 years now with few if any problems. In fact it's so efficient that many of our left handed snipers fire the L96 right handed despite the weapon being ambidextrous. It's all about training and muscle memory.


My answer was related to having a rifle used by left handed not to use it on the left shoulder for a right handed shooter.


As I stated before, a soldier needs to be able to use any weapon he picks up on the battlefield in an instant. This becomes much harder if there are left- and right handed weapons about. Uniform weapons means more efficient muscle memory which means more efficient shooting.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by PaddyInf]

[edit on 14-7-2008 by PaddyInf]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Id bring back the No9 Bullpup Rifle(AKA the Enfield EM2) as it was rumoured to be a great well balanced rifle and a piece of british engineering. The calibre is similar to the 6.8mm of today.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutaway Id bring back the No9 Bullpup Rifle(AKA the Enfield EM2) as it was rumoured to be a great well balanced rifle and a piece of british engineering. The calibre is similar to the 6.8mm of today.


Actually mate the correct calibre of the ammunition was 7.43 mm or .280.

The weapon was put in to a very limited production and was designated the
Rifle, Automatic No 9 Mk 1 or AR No 9 Mk I.

With the adoption of the FN round (7.62mm) as the NATO Standard, the AR No. 9 Mk I was dropped in favour of the FN FAL - heavier barrel/LMG and the FN SLR which was to become the standard British rifle for some considerable time.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I'm an Army Cadet and I handle quite extensively the L98A1. Its a variant in the SA80 series and although quite different from the L85, i can say it feels very cheap for something so heavy and needs to be maintained so much.

I'm 15 and i can come up with a more reliable firing mechanism in that rifle with a toothbrush and my equipment. Hopefully there'l be a replacement intime for when I join up



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
The SA80A2 is a fantastic weapon. It is sturdy and reliable, and with all the kinks ironed out it is a great infantry weapon, with plenty of 'reach' over the M4 and all its variants.

Full auto is really only needed as last ditch defense or during FIBUA going through a door way, single shot lets you lay down nasty accurate fire and you get to see what your shooting at....

However, certain Special Forces units have ditched BOTH the M4 and the SA80A2 for operations inside Iraq.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dan Tanna However, certain Special Forces units have ditched BOTH the M4 and the SA80A2 for operations inside Iraq.


Absolutely correct Dan. But thing is mate, it ain't just SOF that want extra reach.

I hear on the grapevine that certain people are screaming out for M14s and FN SLRs.

Now I wonder where all ours went................................................



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join