Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
Oh, is that why the SAS fought so hard to dump the L85 for ARs?
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. 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. The US Army will greatly regret switching to the M4 if it ever has to fight another war in Europe.

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.
I don't know who fed you this information, but you have been completely misguided. The AR is an excellent design, and yes, it was revolutionary when introduced. Some other assault rifles (AK, SIG 55X, AUG(my love )) do best it in certain qualities, but the effectiveness of an infantry weapon system is determined based on the mix of those qualities and how they come together to reinforce the efforts of the user. The AR offers a very favorable mix of adaptability, ergonomics, accuracy, weight, modularity, speed of magazine changes, ease of field stripping, and yes, reliability. I will not say it is the best of its generation because at that point things become subjective, but it is hardly a 'byword for utter crapness' like the FAMAS and L85. Which assault rifles do you consider better?
SCAR, L85A2, possibly a select fire FN FAL, anything by HK (which includes the L85A2).

I am also not sure what the caliber has to do with anything.
Ballistics - specifically range and stopping power at range.

You are recycling a myth, which has been disproven time and again.

The biggest problem with the weapon is that the military does not understand it. From the powder to the cartridges to the shortened, lightened barrel for all, it continually compromises the system with poorly thought out alterations. They also fail to train it properly, from cleaning to use. It is an assault rifle not a machine gun, and should not be used as such.

I am of the mindset that our troops deserve the best equipment possible, and would not mind my tax dollars being spent on a new system that offers some incrimental improvement like the SCAR. I do, however, understand why the military is hesitant to switch, and it has nothing to do with Colt. As they say around here, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.
"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.