Foxtrot360 Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Click Here Well, i like how the gun looks but i wouldnt want to use it in combat... Already knew the gun was buggy.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babydave Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) ive heard of peoples views that have never had an issue with it and people that have had issues regularly. there have also been articles where the M16 has been slated. would be interesting to see what people who have actually been issued with it long term think. They should have just bought G36's or M4/AR18's to replace them instead of modifying them. Yet the SA80 is not the shame of the army, far from it. See: - Stupid overstretching of the armed forces because other NATO countries wont step up - Cost cutting at every available oppurtunity with no regard for its effects - Not enough equipment to go around - Scrapping infantry regiments/vehicles - An ever depreciating defence budget They are asked to do more and more with less and less. Stop equiping prisons like hotels and giving constant handouts to people that take liberties and spend it on soldiers. Edited January 4, 2006 by babydave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 They are asked to do more and more with less and less. Stop equiping prisons like hotels and giving constant handouts to people that take liberties and spend it on soldiers. ← Prison today = Rehabilitation What happened to punishment? Being lazy today = Government will pay for your life expenses What happened to doing whatever it takes to keep bread on the table? Being a soldier today = Murderer What happened to the hero defending the country? It is amazing how perceptions change with time, and in this case it is a shame. Sorry if I went OT. As far as the SA80 goes, I have heard both good and bad, but I would still like to shoot one one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halo_jones Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 IT suck's from experience "i was a skill at arm instructor" ... it was fundemental flawed and all the mods in the world wont fix it .... as a ranges rifle its ok and the susat sight was pretty good but the cheap construction and the poor design flaws never gave me much confidence in it "which for a SSA instructor training recruits didnt make me a whole smiling little teddie bear...as for "babydaves", coments totaly correct, i get realy cross about the whole defence budget and thing and am happy to be out now cos its got worse since i left in 2000.... and dont even start me on the LSW... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Im just glad i never had to use the lousy thing, the SLR may have been heavier, especially when humping all the extra ammo around, and i would have loved to have had a decent sight on it, but i had confidence in it and knew it would do the job it was designed for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxtrot360 Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 OT - Zebb you deleted me off your MSN list, did i bug you too much ( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pz3 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Foxtrot, suprised your not used to this by now .... lol why u no call me anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 OT - Zebb you deleted me off your MSN list, did i bug you too much ( ← Lol, i didnt delete you mate although i did have to reinstall my msn a while ago after some problems i had, i'll check it out and put you back on if your missing.. Btw, i mainly use x-fire now as well so that doesnt help either.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel bonnet Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Well for the improvment upgrades Heckler Kock did to it,they did fix a lot of the problems. They also made the SA80 better with the attachment of the AG36,giving the MoD the SA80A2-UGL. I think there will always be nay sayers on the weapon,as there are on the M16. When the M16 was introduced it had a long battle ahead of itself (though stating it cleans itself may not have been the wisest thing to say to conscripts). I think perosnally keeping the SLR should have been the thing to do,after all look at the likes of Ghurkas,RMs & other Units during GW1 they switched there SA80s to SLRs & M16s in a heartbeat. The A2 saw more use in GW2 of course though the Demarco & M16s still saw service by our troops. I know when the SA80 was undergoing it`s mods by HK,there was talk of the HK G36 being adopted by the MoD as the standard assault rifle. Alas with what`s been spent on the SA80 upgrade I doubt we`ll see that I think having the G36 as NATOs weapon of choice does make a LOT of sense IMO. NATO already has several Nations using the G36 & the US may have sometime the M8 into service which is possibly compatible (well it is a G36 rip off ). As for more money being spent on the British Military,Hell YEA. It`s about time the Military had a decent Budget with no fears. We have had & have goverments that have NO Problem sending our people all over the world dealing with other Nations problems. Though doing this & then Robbing those Brave men & Women of a Propper support structre & supply line is most WRONG. These people SHOULD have all that they need IMO. As for more money,well we build some more Prisons & rip out the nice-ities of home from the current prisons & go back to a Victorian Prision system,you get locked up.You have NO rights. Less prancing about & a More Sturner stance with them. After all they`ll either NEVER get out of Prison again or they`ll never want to go back so will be good citizens. Though the likes of Drug users & Drug dealers,Murders,rapists,child molesters should be in for life IMO. Put them to HARD LABOUR tasks. A Very cheap/Free almost work force for simple constructions jobs. The Prison Wardens themselves being given MORE power back to them too. Anyway sorry for OT there. One thing though,I`d love to know how much the MoD wasted on paying who ever it was who designed this.......... For the new SSR that was formed in 05. The reason being there was a SSR regt back during WWII,why Not Re-Activate it? That Regt did some OUTSTANDING duties during WWII & then to waste money on paying someone to design a new beret patch for this regt seems a waist of the tax payers cash,just to look like a game console Unit flash. After all that`s what they have done IMO it`s a badge you`d expect from some Team play gamers. Anyway enough of that rant. Here`s to more Money for the British Military with NO restrictions. After all they keep calling upon them so give them some well earned kit. ja Steel Bonnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xG5kdo Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Im just glad i never had to use the lousy thing, the SLR may have been heavier, especially when humping all the extra ammo around, and i would have loved to have had a decent sight on it, but i had confidence in it and knew it would do the job it was designed for. ← Sorry to go a bit OT here, but I've seen pictures of the SLR equipped with the SUIT sight from the 80s. Weren't they good? Out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I can't comment too much on the SA80 as I have never fired one, and for that matter I have never even held one in my hands. The G36 is a fine rifle, and so far the two agency personnel I know have had absolutely no complaints about the gun. Very smooth cycling gun, but the big problem I have with NATO and the guns they use is the 5.56mm round. Good velocity, but too light, weak, the trajectory is too easily affected by wind, and too easily deflected by the smallest of objects. I really hope that NATO makes the 6.8mm the new standard round, or goes back to the proven .308. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel bonnet Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 The SUSAT is a great sight,though it`s not the sight that makes the weapon really. SUSAT & SLR is a Lethal combo =SIGHT & POWER. As for the calibur used by NATO,well that`s down to the US way back when they INSISTED NATO uses that round as they were using it with the M16s. Though I do believe there maybe FINALLY a rethinking & more importantly acting upon the caliber change.Taken them long enough I must admit. I`d love to know who thought up the ideaolgy on the 5.56. In that,you shoot,you wound then 2 of the enemy will then want to rescue & drag to safety there wounded mate,thus one shot 3 ineffective combatants. YEA RIGHT. Ja Steel Bonnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Well, had Colt not rigged the 5.56mm ballistics demo, the US would have never adopted the poor performing cartridge at all. Everyone in the hunting community knows that the .223/5.56mm is nothing more than a varmit round. It is even banned for hunting large game as it is considered inhumane to wound an animal with a weak cartridge causing pain and suffering without killing it. Colt really should be ashamed of themselves for such fraudulent activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel bonnet Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 jchung, Very true. Though at the end of the day there thinking money. Though as the M16 has been a constant in US Military service. Show`s some congresspersons are getting BIG Fat cheques for them still being in sevice this length I truely think Politicians should be left truely out of the Military loop. As most politicians have never truely lived in the REAL world & thus have no concept of it never mind the Military. They should just give blank cheques & leave it to those in the know Hell could you see the British Military if that ever happened,WOW kit gallore.Be like that old Falklands cartoon art one of the Truely overloaded SAS man (Had combat kit,dive kit,para kit,god knows how many weapons etc).Though that would be each person within the Military Still rigging the compitions isn`t a new thing,some said the original SA80 entry was rigged. Ja Steel Bonnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Im just glad i never had to use the lousy thing, the SLR may have been heavier, especially when humping all the extra ammo around, and i would have loved to have had a decent sight on it, but i had confidence in it and knew it would do the job it was designed for. ← Sorry to go a bit OT here, but I've seen pictures of the SLR equipped with the SUIT sight from the 80s. Weren't they good? Out. ← Lol, i know they existed mate but i never got to play with one and i left the service in 1985, it would have been nice to have a had a "cabby", if they worked well it would have been a big improvement imo.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 They should just give blank cheques & leave it to those in the know Hell could you see the British Military if that ever happened,WOW kit gallore.Be like that old Falklands cartoon art one of the Truely overloaded SAS man (Had combat kit,dive kit,para kit,god knows how many weapons etc).Though that would be each person within the Military Still rigging the compitions isn`t a new thing,some said the original SA80 entry was rigged. Steel Bonnet ← That would be the dream of every militia, but not likely to ever happen. Also, unfortunately there would be a few bad apples in the military that would abuse that one just like the politicians. Despite the negative press, I'd still like to run an SA80 once. Just to try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xG5kdo Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 The thing to remember about procurement is that armed forces get only what they need instead of what they want. Its all a political decision. Because, to quote Clausewitz, wars are just the extension of diplomacy (read: politics), the procurement is based on the political need of the armed forces. So the question is then: do we (as the body politic) provide the armed forces with all of the very best equipment, which they may or may not need based on our defense policies, which will cost enourmously (and in most cases prohibitively) to tax payers, or do we give them acceptable equipment that is just enough to fulfill their mission (which is defined politicaly) and cover for reasonable contingencies (which is also defined politicaly). This process should work, if the politicians and those who make these policies actually can understand what missions are feasible on the existing budget. For instance, an armed forces cannot be expected to project power if they are not given the tools to do so (say, a carrier). Price is also something that people forget. Sure, there are better rifles than, say, the M-16. But at the price they are charging, can we really afford to equip the whole armed forces with it? Is it necessary? To equip some units with some rifles and different units with different rifles would create a logistical nightmare. Most of the time, these decisions choose the lesser of two evils. Take the SA-80 (L85A2 currently). Perhaps the decision to actually mod the original rifle instead of equipping the British Army with a whole new family of different rifles was based on the decision that it is more economical to fix the existing problem than to completely re-equip the Army. Sure, perhaps the L85A2 does not function superbly but it functions acceptably. IMO. Out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniper82 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 You know, this is a little OT but in the pic on the article I noticed he is wearing a red beret so if he is worrying about cover and concelement he should change caps. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxtrot360 Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 I think its standard UK army stuff? When i read that i thought in my mind.. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel bonnet Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 The soldier in the photo is a member of the RMP (Royal Military Police). As they usually tend to be rear line they do wear there berets. Though as this is only a publicity photo & NOT actual combat duty.I think it`s pretty safe for him to wear his beret. ja Steel Bonnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniper82 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 ok yeah i was just kidding i knew they didnt wear them in the field Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmichc Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well, I used the old A1 variant back in '96-'97 and used the LSW between '94 and '98, when I was in cadets. Never had a major problem with it... Granted I didn't use it 24/7 like a Reg, but still. The only thing I do remember is that stoppages were not uncommon. particularly 'Rounds In Magazine, Rounds in Chamber', which was a bit of a pain, particularly when a couple of the yahoos we had in cadets decide this would be the ideal moment to wave the weapon around to try and clear the stoppage (soon slapped that down). Other than that, it worked ok for me, including exercises in Germany during the height of a dusty summer and with vehicle work (ambushes, debussing drills, etc). It still performed when the cadets 'forgot' to clean it for a couple of days (another practise that got slapped down), even on automatic fire. It just depends on your individual experiences I suppose, though I agree, a bull-pup weapon is a fairly daft one, especially for FIBUA. By the way, have you all seen this? It's quite a good video on the Australian FIBUA tactics (though read the thread before you slate their performance). It shows the problems with bullpups in FIBUA and left shoulder firing. Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.