the SA-80

21774 Views 56 Replies 15 Participants Last post by Shadow, Nov 24, 2004

the-Brit

Discussion Starter · Nov 17, 2004

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.).

21 - 40 of 57 Posts

Ferrer

· #21 · Nov 19, 2004

After all... I agree with Yimmy... we shoul say what we mean...of course we should also mean what we know...if we don't know we don't say or mean.

How many M16 ( since ever ) have been made ? How many AK-47 ? How many SA80 ? How many G3 ?

What I mean is that driving on the other side of the street doesn't mean disagree with all the guys on the Right ( :wink: ) side of it.

Words tend to exagerate meaning. You don't refer to something with the age of the Ar-15 as «crap». You respect the lives that this «crap» saved or helped to save.

Bruno

the-Brit

Discussion Starter · #22 · Nov 19, 2004

ok, people thanks for all the replies (eventhrough I can't understand half of them).

thinking about the topic again we should stick with the SA80, okay we could adopt the m16, but the british army should be individual and not have the same weapons as our american 'brothers'. But we shouldn't adopt the Ak either (we don't want to look like terrorists). what about the british armed forces having a smg? such as that weapom they have on stargate with the 50 round clip with AP rounds (sorry can't remember the name).

ok have a nice day everyone.

Yimmy, dude where are you from?

Jeff_850

· #23 · Nov 19, 2004

the AK pritty much has the terrorist or 3rd world untrained army stigma to it now though some elite special forces units do use them
M-16 or M4 in 6.8mm SPC with an improved gas system would be the perfect infantry weapon for NATO forces in my opinion
it should be more reliable than the M-16, more stopping power than either the AK or the M-16 and less recoil than an AK

muzzleblast

· #24 · Nov 19, 2004

Just had to chime in again...

I think our soldiers (Canda, USA, UK) have high standards of training. I can't see anyone dry firing an AK for 4 hours a day for a week in thier training in countries that use it lol.

Our guys should have something that shoots as accurately as they do. If thats an M16, HK, SA-80, so be it. Either of them. Any of them. Whats cool about the SA, is that its brit designed, and their own. Canada uses a US design, and it would be cool to have our own too.

westpointranger

· #25 · Nov 19, 2004

thinking about the topic again we should stick with the SA80, okay we could adopt the m16, but the british army should be individual and not have the same weapons as our american 'brothers'. But we shouldn't adopt the Ak either (we don't want to look like terrorists). what about the british armed forces having a smg? such as that weapom they have on stargate with the 50 round clip with AP rounds (sorry can't remember the name).

What's wrong with adopting the M16A2? It sure does beat the heck out of the SA80 (IMHO).

An SMG as the standard infantry weapon? You've got to be kidding or I've got to be hearing you wrong.

mele

· #26 · Nov 19, 2004

Okay, I said I would stay out of it, but I will add this:

What's wrong with adopting the M16A2?

Well, whats wrong with the USA adopting the SA-80? Or the XM8? Or the G3? Or the ...???

The M16, as good as it is, is not perfect for everyone, every condition, etc. Much like sniper rifles, find your requirements, then find the rifle that best fits it. The UK has different requirements than the USA, Canada, Germany, Iraq, etc. I kind of like the comment about having your own unique weapon for your country... just a little home town pride.

I'm not chastising anyone, just was a little curious as to why one would think that the M16 should be adopted by a different country.

MEL

spade

· #27 · Nov 20, 2004

The way I see it mel is sort of an availabilty issue. The casting materials and plans to produce the m16a2 are so widespread that your average 3rd world country would be able to produce these weapons en masse and still be able to afford to pay the men who built em (none the less the ones who carry em).

Plus with nearly 40ish years of history reguarding the m16, they've pretty much got the kinks worked out.

Kiwi

· #28 · Nov 20, 2004

Jeff_850 said:
the AK pritty much has the terrorist or 3rd world untrained army stigma to it now though some elite special forces units do use them
M-16 or M4 in 6.8mm SPC with an improved gas system would be the perfect infantry weapon for NATO forces in my opinion
it should be more reliable than the M-16, more stopping power than either the AK or the M-16 and less recoil than an AK

I agree totaly with you Jeff_850........all the criticism of the M16 and decendants I've heard have centred around.....

a; "5.56 is too light for a battle rifle"

b; "direct gas system (while improved) is not the optimum operating system"

The first point is applicable to all the weapons.....(including the SA80) useing 5.56 NATO.........the second can only point to a piston system.........a la' the AK or, my personal favourite, FAL / SLR.

I wonder how the FAL / SLR would look today if it had received the developement attention and evolution that the M16 has enjoyed over the decades.

Imagine a 6.8 SPC FAL with;

22" or 24' match barrel (to maximize velocity/range) with free-floated front end,
intergral bipod....(something like the G1)
light weight stock (comb and pull adjustable) with PSG1 type pistol grip fixed x4 power scope maybe with options like.....built-in RF, BDC and illuminated reticle,
wearing 20 round magazines
A lighter semi-sniper weapon in the SVD vein.

Then all the variants possible like;
folding or telescoping butt compact version....16' barrel
standard infantry.....18" barreled
CQB or close protection type......11" barrel............etc.......thoughts???????

See less See more

JRP3

· #29 · Nov 20, 2004

http://www.dsarms.com

They have a couple of models that have the free float barrel, and some of them have integral bipods. Of course they dont have everything else you listed!

j

Kiwi

· #30 · Nov 20, 2004

JRP3...........they don't have 6.8 SPC .....

This has got to be the NATO calibre of the future.......no?????

If not, it has to be one very similiar to the 6.8's dimensions.

Anyone heard accuracy reports on the SPC?.......it seems to me not unlike a 6mm PPC .......but with some "Grunt"

Ferrer

· #31 · Nov 20, 2004

Mele

I would like to make a comment on the following:

«I kind of like the comment about having your own unique weapon for your country... just a little home town pride.»

I imagine some coutries have more capability ( financial/industrial ) to develop war/scenario adapted weapons than other.

The issue was at some stage whats wrong with M16. But when we talk about weapon market and financial capabilities to buy ( not even make just buy ) thats a serious matter.

Portugal and most of the coutries in the World ( not only 3rd world ) don't have the expertise to develop such kind of sctructure were Quality/quantity is directly connected.

So I think we should choose from a WORLD CATALOG of weapons ( with this I agree with you ):

Should they be « SA-80? Or the XM8? Or the G3? Or the ...??? »...

When it comes to an individual selection of the right rifle for the job it's quite different than the entire nation/s decision.

I am in favour of let the market offer...choose and customize if necessary... but let the production to the guys who know the subject:

INCLUDING YOU...

Bruno

See less See more

Yimmy

· #32 · Nov 20, 2004

re

"the second can only point to a piston system"

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

westpointranger

· #33 · Nov 20, 2004

mele said:
Okay, I said I would stay out of it, but I will add this:

What's wrong with adopting the M16A2?

Click to expand...

Well, whats wrong with the USA adopting the SA-80? Or the XM8? Or the G3? Or the ...???

The M16, as good as it is, is not perfect for everyone, every condition, etc. Much like sniper rifles, find your requirements, then find the rifle that best fits it. The UK has different requirements than the USA, Canada, Germany, Iraq, etc. I kind of like the comment about having your own unique weapon for your country... just a little home town pride.

I'm not chastising anyone, just was a little curious as to why one would think that the M16 should be adopted by a different country.

MEL

What's wrong with adopting the SA80? If it were an outstanding weapon that would be an option. The fact that it is questionable at best rules out that option. While the G3 IS an outstanding weapon, it's 7.62 NATO cartridge is a little over the top for standard issue. The XM8 is just a piece of . . . well, you know :wink: .

I agree with you, it is cool to have a weapon designed and bult in country. I made that statement because the Brit said:

we could adopt the m16, but the british army should be individual and not have the same weapons as our american 'brothers'.

The next Brit rifle will probably be a G36. The problem is, the Spainish and Germans (and probably several others) use the G36, so British "individuality" is going to be shot (literally :lol: ) in the foot. I just wanted to make the point that individuality is not a valid reason for not adopting the M16.

I don't want to sound disrespectful, I just thought I should explain myself. :lol:

Yimmy

· #34 · Nov 20, 2004

re

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

westpointranger

· #35 · Nov 21, 2004

The M16A2 is by no means an average design. To be in service for forty years, its one of the best designs in history. As I have always said, the M16 has at least 10 more years of service in her (properly upgraded of course).

H&K is a German company and to my knowledge has NEVER been British.

Jeff_850

· #36 · Nov 21, 2004

10 years left?
replace the gas system and its set until the next advancement in assault rifles comes out
the GI M-16s issued are old and beat up though perhapes slowly tickling them out for new ones but that wont happen as long as they fire

Max338

· #37 · Nov 21, 2004

Yimmy is correct.. HK was bought out by a british firm (BAE if i remember correctly) and now its either self owned or owned by another company..... britain would do well looking at any of the current and future assult rifles on the market: the F2000 would be really good for southpaws and as a good basis for a DMR (depending on reliabilty and accuracy). one thing about this gun is that there is almost no flying brass. the G36 has been proven in combat (germany in afghanistan, and Kosovo) Tavor has been reported to be a lil heavy....

Yimmy

· #38 · Nov 21, 2004

re

"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.

westpointranger

· #39 · Nov 21, 2004

If it were a flawed design, why would it still be in servce with the US and Israel? So its gas system isn't the best. It works, and it work well.

muzzleblast

· #40 · Nov 21, 2004

Thats right Westpoint...

As far as I know it was the same for us. We had the FAL (C1) and wanted a replacement for it, an assault rifle in 5.56 mm...I guess some might argue that we picked up the M16 because we are your little brother, but as far as I know, our arms manufacturer (Diemaco) co-operated with Colt on designing and making the M2, our C7, etc. If we helped at all with designing it, and produce it ourselves, I don't know why we would adopt an inferior weapon. Not saying its the best, just that its as good as anything else.

As for third world countries and ease of manufacture, instead of an M-16 why not a high end AK? Like the new Finnish Sako, that looks great. Or the Polish "Tantal", a Stanag AK.

21 - 40 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.