Quote:
Originally Posted by
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The SAS never used the L85A1, they were using the M-16 with the 203 grenade launcher by the time of the Falklands, for the reason that the M-16's ammunition was lighter and the weapon has selective fire, which the SLR did not.
Not true. The MOD tried to push the L85 in both A1 and A2 versions on the SAS several times. There are even some pictures of the SAS training with A2s floating around if you look hard enough. The SAS kindly responded 'No thanks, we'll keep our ARs. We might actually have to fight.'
Quote:
THE SAS is to buy a new assault weapon to replace its favourite American M16 rifle, but will insist that it be spared having to use a version of the troubled SA80 rifle used by the rest of the Army, despite claims that the SA80's problems are a thing of the past. Two hundred thousand of the SA80s, which have been criticised ever since they first came into service in 1985, are being extensively modified at a cost of L80 million but although the much-modified SA80 is supposed to have overcome all the problems highlighted by British soldiers in successive campaigns - the Gulf War in 1991, Kosovo last year and Sierra Leone in May - it is not expected to be given a second thought by the British Army's most elite regiment.
A week ago the modified SA80 rifle and light support weapon derivative surpassed expectations during endurance trials by an Army team at Warminster in Wiltshire, when each gun tested fired 15,000 rounds through new barrels without mishap.
A British Army firearms expert said that normal weapons trials involved firing only 10,000 rounds.
"It proved that the modified SA80 is going to be an excellent rifle and one of the most reliable weapons of its type," the officer said.
It was the Special Air Service, with the Parachute Regiment, that first complained of the SA80 when they tested it in the 1980s. They reported that the rifle
jammed in dusty conditions. The SAS subsequently spurned the British-designed rifle and stayed with the Vietnam War-proven M16, which it had acquired before the SA80 came into service.
Now, as part of a "new small arms for special forces" programme, the SAS is looking at a range of advanced weapons to replace the M16, which, like the SA80, has also been modified many times. The version carried recently by the SAS in Sierra Leone is the M16A2.
Ian Hogg, editor of Jane's Infantry Weapons, said the Hereford-based regiment had chosen to stay with the M16 because it did not consider the SA80 to be sufficiently reliable.
And, of course, the SAS was correct. The new A2 turned out to be absolute trash.
Quote:
A number of standard army rifles, recently modified at a cost of £92m, have jammed or misfired in operations in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence confirmed yesterday.
A team has just returned from Kabul after investigating official reports from soldiers that three SA80-A2 rifles had malfunctioned. There were anecdotal reports of other rifles not working properly, the MoD said. "We have still to get to the bottom of exactly what those problems are before we make any judgment", said Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, who visited Kabul earlier this week.
"The rifles are operating in really extreme conditions. It's very, very hot and there is lots of sand. And some of the rifles are being affected by the heat.
"But it's not good enough. We have spent a considerable amount of money upgrading this rife and I don't want to accept second best. We do not want anybody to be facing any more risks out there than they are already."
The original SA80, made in Britain, was suspended from Nato weapons lists in 1997 after soldiers experienced problems such as jamming in extreme weather.
H&K simply cannot perform miracles.
Quote:
The Ministry of Defence should consider scrapping the Army's SA 80 assault rifle, plagued by problems since its introduction into service, if reports that the weapon has been malfunctioning in Afghanistan prove correct, the Tories said yesterday.
The challenge followed the announcement by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, of an investigation into claims by Royal Marines that the rifle had suffered from jamming and misfires during operations in the country. The weapons involved were "improved" SA 80 A2s, the product of a £92 million project to remedy the rifle's defects.
The MoD's concern about the weaknesses of British infantry firepower in recent operations has also been illustrated by the decision to equip the Army with a new light machine-gun because of the inadequate rate of fire provided by the machine-gun version of SA 80, known as the Light Support Weapon (LSW).
Mr Hoon said he had sent a team from the MoD and the SA 80's manufacturers to Afghanistan this week to investigate the problems.
Speaking at the launch of Army 2002 on Salisbury Plain, he said: "I have just come back from Afghanistan, where I talked to the Royal Marines who have used the gun. The problems are that from time to time the rifle is jamming and they believe that is because of the really extreme conditions they have encountered. It is very hot, very windy and there is a lot of sand there."
The original SA 80 was suspended from the Nato nominated weapon list in 1997 after soldiers experienced problems such as jamming in extreme weather. To date 22,000 modified rifles have been issued to the Army, with priority going to units in Afghanistan.
As it turned out, the H&K mod was a sham from the beginning.
Quote:
Trials of the modified SA-80 rifle in Kuwait to test it in the heat and sand of the desert were a sham, say defence sources.
Hessian matting was laid on the ranges to protect the SA-80 A2s and they were taken to the trials in bags.
A team from the Army's Small Arms School carried out "operational" trials in Kuwait, Norway and Belize, to test the weapon's reaction to arctic, jungle and desert conditions, said a senior source yesterday.
The rifle was modified by Heckler & Koch at a cost of £92 million after more than a decade of reports on its failings, most notably in the Gulf War. But it reacted badly to the fine sand and heat in Afghanistan. Royal Marines using it in combat reported stoppages and magazine failures.
A more realistic test by a company of marines for an investigation team sent to Afghanistan led to problems with 30 per cent of the rifles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVC
The L85a2 is a superior weapon overall, the only drawback being weight, but the flip side of that is that the bullpup design greatly reduces recoil, which is negligible in single-shot mode, and allows soldiers to have the range and power of a full-size rifle in a platform smaller and more maneuverable than an M4.
Are you serious? Your own military doesn't even believe that.
Quote:
Senior army officers want the Government to scrap the service's fault-prone main assault rifle because of fears that it will cost the lives of British soldiers in battle.
The demands arose after it emerged that several SA80-A2 rifles, the latest version of the weapon that recently completed a £92 million upgrade, failed to fire during operations in Afghanistan.
One senior officer told The Telegraph: "You can't improve a weapon which is basically flawed no matter how much you spend on it, and the SA80 is a flawed weapon. It's not balanced, the optical sight easily gets steamed up so it can't be used, and it can't be fired in the left-handed position.
"Even with all the modifications these basic flaws still exist. The lesson here is that no amount of testing can replicate conditions in war. The modifications have made it more reliable and it doesn't jam as much as before, but it still jams. And a stoppage in combat will cost the life of a British soldier."
Another senior officer said he believed that troops had lost confidence in the weapon following the latest failures.
Quote:
The Army's Director of Infantry called for the modified SA80 rifle to be scrapped amid concerns over the inadequate firepower it gave his men, according to a document leaked to The Telegraph yesterday.
Although trials on the modified rifle were deemed successful "options such as the phasing out of the SA80 and the procurement of an off-the-shelf proven weapon system need to be considered", Brig Seymour Monro said.
In a document entitled Infantry 2010, he also called for the machinegun, the Light Support Weapon (LSW), to be scrapped.
Brig Monro, who was transferred in June last year, said: "The LSW, even when modified, is unlikely to be the most effective way of meeting the suppressive fire requirements of the infantry engaged in close combat.
"HQ Infantry's view is that the Light Machinegun (LMG) should replace the LSW in the Infantry [including the Royal Marines and RAF Regiment]."
The MoD has committed itself to keeping the SA80 until 2015 but the document pointed out that the SA80 will not work with new sophisticated systems due to be issued to all infantrymen in 2008.
"Trials indicate that short bull-pup designs such as the SA80 quickly become unbalanced once day/night [thermal imaging] sights, laser aimers and other equipment are fitted, with consequent loss of operational effectiveness," it said.
The Daily Telegraph has also been sent a photograph demonstrating that last year's "successful" trials of the modified weapon's ability to operate in desert conditions were a sham.
The MoD dismissed our report earlier this year that trials of the modified SA80 in the Kuwaiti desert were carried out in artificial conditions.
But the photograph clearly shows the weapon being fired on coconut matting on top of plastic sheeting to protect it from the sand. A hessian bag in which the rifle was carried to the range, also to protect it from the sand, lies between two ammunition boxes.
"It wasn't realistic," a senior Army source said. "These weapons were not exposed to long periods of operation in dusty conditions, the soldiers used mats and the weapons were delivered in dust free containers.
"The ammunition was drawn straight from factory sealed boxes and loaded into brand new magazines. There was no simulation of the battlefield."
The SA80 has immense problems in the desert. The MoD confirmed this week that the unmodified version, which British troops were forced to use during the 1991 Gulf war had only six per cent reliability in desert conditions.
The modified version failed when it was used in combat conditions for the first time in Afghanistan earlier this year.
Senior Army officers tried to blame the Royal Marines, saying that they were not cleaning their weapons properly.
But a Royal Marines officer said his men were cleaning their rifles as much as five times a day.
"A few senior Army officers speak in praise of the weapon," one Army officer said. "But they are not the guys who will be using it."
Both the Royal Marines, hunting down al-Qa'eda remnants, and British paratroopers on duty with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul ditched the LSW in favour of the US Minimi machinegun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVC
As a shooting piece, the L85 is stupidly accurate and the L86 is is just ridiculous for what it is, a heavy barreled assault rifle with a bi-pod.
The vaunted 'accuracy' is solely due to being issued with a magnified optic - which was a stupid decision in its own right. With the same optics, the AR actually has superior accuracy.
The L85 is junk. The L86 was dumped do to its terrible performance. This has been well documented. The H&K redesign was a massive improvement in that critical pieces didn't crack and/or fall off the weapon (no exaggeration, important bits simply fell off the rifle), but it still resulted in junk because they were forced to work within the constrictions of the original SA80 design.
And worse, unlike the AR which has proven to be adaptable to modern fighting techniques due to its modularity, specifically in regard to CQB, the L85 has fallen dramatically behind.
Quote:
The SA80 is a poor design and prone to a lot of problems. The M16/M4 isn't superior in ALL regards, be it is in MOST of them
When dudes raised on the SA80 switch over to M4s (and even the M16A4 fence-post) they love them, especially when I show them the versatility of the system.
It is heavy. It feels like an AK, weight-wise. It is primarily constructed from stamped sheet metal.
The trigger has serious issues, and under a heavy firing schedule are prone to failing. I have personally seen three guns go down almost simultaneously with the same problem.
The handguard has a mounting screw that goes through the gas-block on the barrel which makes the gun very susceptable to POI change due to pressure on the handguard from aggressive hold, VFG use, or supported positions. This is not changed with the DD handguards- which have their own problems. They are prone to loosening of the retention screws (one through the gas-block and one that presses into the front of the receiver), which results in drastic POI variance. The gas block is exposed, and it happens to be right where the support hand wants to be for good front-end control. The top rail is lower than the top of the gas-block which severely limits a 12:00 light mount.
It is highly trigger sensitive and prone to having consistently low groups during rapid fire or rapid trigger manipulation.
It is no more accurate than an M16 or M4 when compared with similar optics.
The line of sight over bore is really high, especially when using a piggybacked MRD.
The NATO rail is severely lacking.
The SUSAT is a nightmare.
I have not seen the magazine well bend. However, I have seen what we would call the "lower receiver" (TMH here) bow outward which results in the magazine over-seating (like crappy 10 round 1911 mags do) during speed reloads.
The weapon can be fired left-handed, but only if you are very very careful and have a laser.
The rearward weight distribution makes the gun bouncy during multi-shot engagements and auto. I can hold 20 rounds on an IPSC on FA (full auto)with an M4A1, about 10 to 12 with the SA80.
The lack of adjustability of the LOP (length of pull) makes the gun sub-optimal for CQB. Everybody touts the thing for being so short, but the LOP is barely shorter than an M16A2. Combined with the zero amount of eye-relief of the SUSAT; CQB work with it when wearing armor sucks unless you want to rely solely on the laser (if you get one) or until the ACOGS come in (which have a MRD piggy-backed). The long LOP prevents the 3-man from carrying in the high port, which results in a less than speedy 3-man's gun in the room/fight.
It is virtually unusable with a single-point sling though the issue 3-point essentially configures into a single point, it isn't really. The sling sucks hard, but that will probably be a non-issue since we do have options.
The pistol grip is uncomfortable unless, get this, you hold it with all of your fingers. That's right- it's more comfortable to carry in a non-firing grip than with a finger straight and off the trigger.
The position and type of safety requires the shooter to use the left hand to engage the safety. It's a cross-bolt safety just forward of the trigger guard.
The mag catch is stiff and only operable with the left hand.
The placement of the mag release and charging handle (left side and right side, respectively) means that you have to flip the gun back and forth for stoppage reduction instead of just canting it and running it. The bolt-catch is handy though. Unfortunately, the bolt release is tiny and requires a bit of dexterity to consistently manipulate it.
The short handguard makes it impossible the grip out on the rail where you are most efficient, but you have to hit the safety with the left hand anyway, so it's just a forced compromise anyway. It feels like a pan of water during SOM (shooting on the move).
The trigger mechanism is slightly less complicated than the interior of a combine harvester, and prone to all kinds of fouling and unnecessary play, resulting in a great trigger (sarcasm).
The buttstock is ribbed, but doesn't stick in place during firing like a decent stock should. It is also heavily curved which makes running in the frontal pocket with armor more difficult than it needs to be.
You need two hands to work the gun and a functioning right side hand, arm, and clear line of sight to the right eye. This implies a lot of of failure points when in unconventional positions.
I taught the lead urban combat course in both marksmanship and tactics in the UK to instructor-level personnel from everywhere from SFSG to FPGRM. To a man they are senior and all have multiple tours in Iraq and the 'Ghan. I work with senior guys, guys that have been around and done stuff, many of which carried weapons systems other than the SA80. All of them are vocal about the fact that the SA80 needs to go away and be replaced with something that is actually made to fight with.
Yes, we are using A2s. There are no A1s, as they were all upgraded to the A2 configuration. Yes, I know the difference.
The SA80 is a bit better with the ACOG, but it doesn't do a damned thing about the problems with the system. The mount is a weak point. The ACOG needs to be cantilevered forward with the mount due to the rail being too short, and there are numerous accounts of a dropped rifle breaking or bending the mount. Implying that system would be fixed with an optic is grasping for straws and trying to obscure the real issues.
I have sufficient experience in CQB to say that the short overall length of the SA80 is not an advantage over an M4, especially considering that the length of pull is not adjustable. Most movements within the enclosure will be done from a compressed position with the barrel pointing either upward or down. Virtually no actions will be taken with the gun up unless covering a danger area or threat, in which case the shorter OAL does nothing. Indexing the gun sucks since the bolt travel will cause the cocking handle to strike the bicep if brought into an under-arm position, which means that I can actually make the M4 protrude a shorter distance and still be usable for extremely close contact. I have hopped into and out of vehicles a few times and I can positively say that the SA80 is barely better than a SAM-R (USMC's version of the Mk11 SPR essentially), and no better than an M4 in those conditions.
Why can't people be honest about things like guns? The SA80 is a POS. A better gun backed by better training would yield a better result. Why don't people want that to happen? As it is, HK is running out of SA80 receivers (I forgot to note, they are prone to cracking), which means that the MOD (Ministry of Defense) will have to accelerate their selection of a new system. I know this because I was in a tri-service (British) meeting about the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVC
SCAR, L85A2, possibly a select fire FN FAL, anything by HK (which includes the L85A2).
Well yeah, I kind of meant which of its contemporaries would have been a better choice to adopt. The SCAR entered service three years ago.
The L85A2 is garbage, as discussed above. The FAL is a wonderful weapon, but it is a Cold War era main battle rifle in line with the G3 and M14. It is completely unsuitable to fill the assault rifle role. The H&K XM8 which was being developed to replace the AR turned out to have a melting problem.
In my opinion, the AUG would have been a great choice, or maybe the SIG 55X series - although both come with significant disadvantages.
Quote:
Ballistics - specifically range and stopping power at range.
But what does that have to do with the rifle's operation? The AR was originally developed in .308. It can be had in .300 Blackout, 6.8 SPR, 6.5 Lapua, etc. The viability of the 5.56 has no bearing on the functionality of the AR platform.
Quote:
"The military does not understand it" is code for "the system is too temperamental" - live with it. The AR platform is not robust enough to reliably stand up to field conditions when handled by stupid soldiers. The average solder carried 120 rounds in his left magazine pouch, plus whatever else he can carry - your article says that "upwards of 150 rounds" the AR-15 need cleaning. As MRD has noted, soldiers on patrol fire in the region of 200. It also isn't a "myth", using cordite the M-16 is not low maintenance. Saying "oh, you need to use better powder" doesn't cut it, especially when cordite is cheaper and you are mass-producing ammo for a war.
I think you may want to re-read my links. They actually said:
Quote:
I reliably fired 2400 rounds (80 magazines) on a bone dry gun, and I would bet that is a lot more than any soldier or other armed professional will ever come close to firing without any lubrication whatsoever.]
Quote:
Over the past few years, I've fired a number of ARs (and a number of other weapons, for that matter) for thousands of rounds without any sort of cleaning whatsoever - in most cases, I just kept adding lubricant to the weapon. Recently, as you can see right below this post, I fired close to 3000 rounds through a 5.45 AR-15 without cleaning or lubrication.
It is very odd to witness someone trashing the AR and praising the L85 at the same time. I get the complaints from the AK purists who would sacrifice all other factors for absolute maintenance free reliability (which is a myth, by the way, but that is a different discussion), but I do not understand how one can come to the conclusion that the L85 is even in the same league. Both systems had rocky introductions, but whereas the AR has actually blossomed with age and gained wider acceptance, the L85 has continued to limp along as a running joke. (Designed by the Incompetent; Issued by the Uncaring; Carried by the Unfortunate; as British soldiers used to say before it was banned.)
Global procurement of AR pattern rifles has surpassed that of the AK for several years now. The Brits could only pawn the L85 off on the Jamaican army. No one who actually gets into gunfights and has a choice of firearm picks the L85, even your own special forces. They use the AR.
