Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

the SA-80

21775 Views 56 Replies 15 Participants Last post by  Shadow
hi all
i was just wondering what you guys think of the SA-80 as a weapon.
I personally think that we should drop it in favour of the basic american weapon (M20 etc.).
1 - 11 of 57 Posts

You wouldn't really want the British army using crap M16's or that new bastardised G36 would you?

We will use the L85A1 and A2 until 2015 or thereabouts, and then we will likely adopt the German G36....

Nobody uses the SLR anymore; the SA-80 isn't great for parades, but it's okay.
There are still a few SLR's laying around in armouries, but they are not officially used.

Remember, those guards are doing a real job, they are not just there for the ceremonial side of things, hence why in that picture they still have the SUSAT.

Ferrer, the SAS use numerous weapons, including the SA-80, the C7, C8, M203, Minimi, Gimpy, G3, MP5 etc etc....
The C7 allows for greater deniability of operations than the SA-80, and the regiment were using the M16 long before the SA-80 was on the scene. Not that the M16 doesnt have some advantages, despite its awful operating system. It is lighter and easier to wield and march with for a start.

Hmmm..... where to start?
I'll take mels advice and put the club down I think. :D

First Jeff, have you tried changing the magazine on a bullpup? I can honestly say I have never changed the magazine of a conventional rifle (not that I remember anyway). Ergo I can not really compare, however I have never had any problem changing the mag of a bullpup.

As for field stripping, well, I think most modern rifles are fairly simple and quick to do....

Ferrer, if I am or am not anything to do with the military doesn't matter. The SAS, ie Special Air Service, do not have the possibility of taking a pinkie with them where-ever they go. They are recce soldiers, thery sit in OP's and go on patrols... they march like any other soldier, and I am sure they whine just as much and all. They are not superman.

I never have liked the AR15, because I have never liked its operating system, I feel the same way about the MAS49.
An M16 with a long barrel and a gas piston I am sure would be a fine rifle.
See less See more

"Yimmy... you mean Stoner SR-25"

No, I have the nice habbit of saying what I mean. :wink:

"the second can only point to a piston system"

There are other systems in use, just look at the FAMAS.

Adopting the M16 would be insanity, it is an old, average design.

However there is no chance of the British army adopting another British rifle after the SA-80, simply because we no longer have any companies which produce small arms.
We have a few which produce hunting rifles and sporting rifles, but no assault rifles. I am not even sure Rigby exist anymore, nor do I know if H&H are still a Brit firm, Webley now only make air rifles and custom guns, Sterling was bought out by Royal Ordance years ago and its factories closed, Royal Ordance in turn was bought by BAE, and Enfield was also bought by BAE.

Now, BAE in its RO factories does still produce ammunition, including out 4.6x30mm round, 556 and 7.62mm... however I have no idea if (and I doubt they do) have any capability or expertise to make assault rifles.
And as you all know Britain no longer owns H&K, and I have no idea if they have any factories in the UK anymore.

I think it is fairly clear that Britains next assault rifle will either be the G36, the FN2000 or the Tavor, possibly a development of the FAMAS. I would like to se the FAMAS win, but I expect a new version of the G36 will be marketed for the competition when it comes.
See less See more

"The M16A2 is by no means an average design"

Of course it is, don't be blinded by it being American and around for a while....
It is a self loading rifle right, and as self loading rifles go it has one of the worst operating systems around at the moment!
It is nice and light and handy, and has good ergonomics, and a good barrel length in its full length versions; however none of this can change the fact that it is a flawed design.

The M16 is no more than average. If it is better than average, then what makes it better than all the other dozens of designs on the market?

I think calling it average is generous; it may only have one major flaw, but it is one Hell of a big one.

I have never been able to understand people being patriotic towards weapon systems, rifles, tanks etc...
A good rifle is one you want to have, and a bad rifle is one you do not want to have, simple. The M16 has a God awful operating system, and so I would not want to have it.

spade said:
ok yimmy, what exactly is flawed about the m16a. Why is it flawed, and what could be done to make it better? And dont just say "the gas system is flawed" rather say, "The gas system is flawed because of ....".

the M16 has the reputation for being the standard by which all ARs are compared.
Well, they forgot to put the gas piston in, what more do you need?
That little rod is in most rifles for a reason; it contains the carbon residue in the gas plug and gas cylinder, and as such does not allow it to obstruct the movement of the bolt.

As for the L85A2 jamming in the desert as soon as you left the chopper, that is simply incorrect. The Royal marines had problems with the rifle jamming, however that was due to them being issued WD40 instead of rifle oil... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out why it wasn't working!

I would argue that the AK is the standard to which other rifles are judged.
Max338 said:
the pricipal of direct gas has been used in weapons quite a few years before 'Gene Stoner designed the AR10. in the MAS-49 it proved to be adequate and reliable. Gas Pistons have a good amound of weight. they are also 1 more part to clean. Gene Stoner didnt leave it out, he took a proven principal and made it better... a good idea to solve the Gas tube problem in the AR series is mabe to teflon coat the inside of the tube....
The MAS49's operating system was not great, but it was okay, it had a blessing and a failure. What made it better than the system Stoner adopted, was that the gas escaped out the top of the reciever as the bolt carrier flew back, and as such was not contained in the rifle and so did not cause much residue to attach itself on the insides of the weapon. Its failure was that having the carbon residue fly out the top if the weapon so close to the shooters face, could result in bits getting in your eye, being an irritation.

I must object to your claims about gas pistons however; for they are neither heavy nor are they hard to clean, infact, I think they are probably the easiest piece of the weapon to clean, requiring only a quick wipe with a cloth.

You won't get any real noticable carbon build up on the gas piston or the gas cylinder, where the real build up is to be found is the gas plug, which has to be cleaned with a reamer.
When it starts to get too blocked, and causes a gas stoppage, you adjust the gas plug to allow more gas through.
1 - 11 of 57 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.