what rifle is this?

reply to post by PaddyInf


The reason I didn't shoot it is because I'm left handed, and was told by the RO that if I tried I would have a face full of hot brass, be blinded and/or lose my nose. Difficult weapon to love that one.

Please tell me you don't force your left handed recruits to shoot right handed with this weapon, that really would be panto time.

As for the issues with the earlier A1 - did it ever occur to you to wonder aloud why some ignorant American such as myself was able to identfify such glaring design faults on a weapon from exactly 2 minutes of handling, a weapon that was still issued to front line troops?

Also, the press is still buzzing with reports of the A2 jamming in Afghanistan, not as much as the admittedly lousy M4 perhaps, but jamming nonetheless.

Finally, if this weapon really is the dogs knackers, how come your own special forces guys (who have the luxury of choosing their small arms) never touched the SA80, speaks volumes don't ya think? Not to mention the fact that in terms of export sales you couldn't (and still can't) give it away.

Much respect for actually putting your butt out there for real, but if I was in that slit trench with you, I'd be throwing rocks for the reasons stated above.

I dont know what model that gun is ...but it looks cool to me

I also like my Savage 300 ultra mag with a boyd brothers aftermarket thumbhole sportster stock

Try Boyd Brothers for your gun stocks they are super comfortable

Originally posted by Retseh
The reason I didn't shoot it is because I'm left handed, and was told by the RO that if I tried I would have a face full of hot brass, be blinded and/or lose my nose. Difficult weapon to love that one.

Please tell me you don't force your left handed recruits to shoot right handed with this weapon, that really would be panto time.

As for the issues with the earlier A1 - did it ever occur to you to wonder aloud why some ignorant American such as myself was able to identfify such glaring design faults on a weapon from exactly 2 minutes of handling, a weapon that was still issued to front line troops?
...

If you have never used a firearm before (like the vast majority of the British recruits) then being left handed is not relevant as - from the start - you are taught to shoot in a particular way. Therefore, it is not a design fault and I am sure you are not ignorant.

There are advantages in having a same-handed weapon in that all weapons are the same.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphiIf you have never used a firearm before (like the vast majority of the British recruits) then being left handed is not relevant as - from the start - you are taught to shoot in a particular way. Therefore, it is not a design fault and I am sure you are not ignorant.

There are advantages in having a same-handed weapon in that all weapons are the same.

Regards

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I honestly doubt you can force a left handed shooter to shoot equally well right handed.

It's worth noting that other bullpup designs made recognition of the existence of left handed people right from the outset, indeed the Steyr AUG comes pre-shipped with a spare left hand bolt for the purpose, while the FAMAS is easily converted for left handed shooters, even the new Kel-Tec bullpup has forward ejection for that purpose.

Only the SA80 design chose to move the mountain to Mohammed.

If you don't think that's a design flaw, even when every other mainstream bullpup design fixed the problem, then like I say, we'll take away different opinions.

Originally posted by Retseh
reply to post by PaddyInf

 

Please tell me you don't force your left handed recruits to shoot right handed with this weapon, that really would be panto time.

Actually we do, and with no significant problems. You forget that the majority of British soldiers have never fired a weapon prior to joining (certainly no where near enough to develop any sort of muscle memory). This makes it very easy to teach right handed shooting. It's a training issue, not a weapon issue.

As for the issues with the earlier A1 - did it ever occur to you to wonder aloud why some ignorant American such as myself was able to identfify such glaring design faults on a weapon from exactly 2 minutes of handling, a weapon that was still issued to front line troops?

The issue of the SA80A1 was a political move to keep the Enfield weapon plant in operation. It certainly wasn't the best weapon available at the time, and I personally thought it was crap for one simple reason - you couldn't rely on it to go bang when you needed it to. However H&K have solved the vast majority of issues with the weapon and it is now as reliable and accurate as any of its' peers.

Put it like this - In the past I've been attached to units that don't issue the SA80 prior to the issue of the A2, notibly on special duties in NI. I've used the weapons that were available then for extended periods, primarily the HK53, MP5, G3KA4 and the M16. You know what? Despite this experience I'm still happy to carry the A2. It works.

Also, the press is still buzzing with reports of the A2 jamming in Afghanistan, not as much as the admittedly lousy M4 perhaps, but jamming nonetheless.

Show me an assault rifle that doesn't have stoppages. Any rifle. I've seen stoppages with the AK47, despite it's vaunted 'you can leave a cleaning rag in it and it will still fire' reputation.

Second, show me a press that doesn't sensationalise even the most minor fault to sell news papers. In numerous tests the SA80A2 out performed any other rifle issued to NATO forces in reliability tests. If you can design a weapon that is guaranteed not to have any stoppages at all, ever, then you will make a lot of money, because none exist yet. The SA80A2 is simply among the most reliable of what is available.

Finally, if this weapon really is the dogs knackers, how come your own special forces guys (who have the luxury of choosing their small arms) never touched the SA80, speaks volumes don't ya think?

The SA80A2 is designed with the requirements of dismounted infantry in mind. Things like the weight and commonality with foreign forces are not an issue to these troops. SF on the other hand need to have a weapon that is lighter and share commonality with NATO forces for muscle memory reasons, hence they use an M16 - type base.

The SA80A2 has been re-introduced onto the UKSF approved weapons list. This means that it has passed their stringent tests for use. I think that says more, don't you? My personal experience of SF units is that they always want to be that little bit different than the rest of us.

Not to mention the fact that in terms of export sales you couldn't (and still can't) give it away.

The initial export sales for the SA80 were based on the A1 which was rubbish. The A2s were made from butchered A1s with HK parts added. The A2 was never put up for export for one simple reason. The plant that made the initial parts for the SA80A1 has been decommissioned so we no longer have the capability to make the weapon. Therefore there will never be any export sales as the capability to make the weapon no longer exists.

Much respect for actually putting your butt out there for real, but if I was in that slit trench with you, I'd be throwing rocks for the reasons stated above.

You're opinion is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. My opinion of the matter in hand is simply based on many years practical experience.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by PaddyInf]

it is not a sa 80 its a l85 a2 , it became the a2 under heckler and koch...whilst owned by uk company royal ordinance..and yes it can have a bolt and reciever for lefties..

Originally posted by gambon
it is not a sa 80 its a l85 a2 , it became the a2 under heckler and koch...whilst owned by uk company royal ordinance..and yes it can have a bolt and reciever for lefties..

L85A2 is the military designation for the weapon, in the same way as L105A2 is the designataion for the SIG P226, L110 is that for the FN Minimi Para etc. The weapon is still a SA80A2, and is referred to as such in all training publications regarding the weapon.

Indeed the main training publication for the weapon is called 'Infantry Training, Volume II, Skill at Arms (Personal Weapons), Pamphlet 5, The SA80 A2 (5.56mm) System (Rifle, Light Support Weapon and Carbine) and Associated Equipment 2009'. Catchy, isn't it?

As for the left handed bolt receiver - technically yes, the weapon was designed to incorporated to convert to left handed. If you look at the left side of the receiver under the cheek piece there is a piece of welding that would have accepted the bolt. However this was welded over and a permanent cheek piece installed instead as the government thought it would be more cost effective to make all weapons the same. A very small number of the left handed bolts etc were only ever made at trial level and never procured, and are not able to be installed in the current weapon.

If you can't find the name of it, just research " bull-pup" design guns, which are guns with the magazine in the stock of the gun. Bull-pups do give you a big advantage in close quarters.